s l a n g 2 / c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s arbeitspapier ... file1.4 meaning unit of the first...

S L A N G 2 / c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s

Arbeitspapier - Seminar "Entwicklung eines tools zur

Bedeutungsanalyse"

- Schweizer / SS 04 - SS 06 - SS 07 - WS 07/08

Table of Contents

0. Content Units and Content functions0.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

1. Semantical Transcription of the Illocution Units

1.1 Word form Sememe1.1.1 Question for every word form: semantically constitutive or

not?1.1.2 Transfer of these first analyses to further instances of the

same word form in the text1.1.3 The program offers the second IU - but now including the

semantic analyses just made.1.1.4 Using the Data Base JOSEPH1.1.5 Proper Names1.1.6 Adding attributs: Noun or Verb

1.2 Meaning units

1.3 Terms and Levels1.3.1 Terms1.3.2 Levels1.3.3 Computer assisted analysis1.3.4 Data Bases1.3.5 Meaning Units and Data Base terms

1.4 MEANING UNIT of the first type: data structure of MU1 -1

1.5 Filling in the container MEANING UNIT

1.6 Relation between Meaning Units (MU or MU ): SEMEME-Group = MU2 2

1.6.1 Theory and explanation1.6.2 Program and GUI

1.7 Function of Meaning Units (simple or complex = Sememe-Group)within a single IU Second type of relations between Meaningunits: IU

1.7.1 Theory and explanation1.7.2 Program and GUI

1.8 Textual Grammar1.8.1 Theory and explanation: first type of critical examination;

search for larger units1.8.2 Relations between IUs - by explicit semantic mechanisms1.8.3 Critical examination of "Predicate"/Semantics1.8.3.1 Type of analysis1.8.3.2 MU

4 - textgrammatical checking: true predicate?4

1.8.3.3 Program1.8.41.8.5 Relations between IUs - based on critical examination of

predicates1.8.6 Import of KHS (see 2.1) = MU

5 , comparison/correction of the5

divergent insights

1.8.7 Definition of Makrosatz (MU6 )

1.8.8 Definition of TGE = Textgrammatische Einheiten : MU7 7

1.8.9 Program and GUI

1.9 Textlinguistics (TL): second type of critical analysis; searchfor text units based on the second, hidden meaning

1.9.1 Selection of a sequence of Meaning Units (stylistic features):MU

8 8

2. Pragmatic Analysis

2.1 Text Illocution-Unit

2.1.1 Search for indications of Direct Speech: KHS2.1.2 Determining the borders of a KHS2.1.2.1 The interchange of speech contributions2.1.2.2 Filling the gaps2.1.2.3 Running-up ("Vorfeld") and follow-up ("Nachfeld") of a

dialogue2.1.2.4 Algorithms2.1.2.5 Dialogue refinements: Search for steerings of speech

contribution2.1.2.5.1 Tagging both types of steerings2.1.2.5.2 Synopsis of the results2.1.2.6 FACE - preserving or threatening acts

2.1.3 Renominalisation

2.2 ACTORS of the text

2.2.1 Determining the ACTORS mentioned explicitly in the text2.2.1.1 Step 1: Nouns, but no pronouns2.2.1.2 Step 2: resolution of pronouns

2.2.2 Determining the ACTORS presupposed by the text

2.2.3 ACTORS + Speech contributions within a KHS2.2.3.1 Tagging the speech contributions: two speaking strategies2.2.3.2 See Appendix 17 .

2.3 Determining the structure of TEXT ACTANTS (Roles)

2.4 ISOTOPIES THEMA/RHEMA-Structure

2.5 Segmentation into TGE, EPISODE, TLE2.5.1 Segmentation into TGE2.5.2 Segmentation into EPISODE2.5.3 Segmentation into TLE

2.6 Critical examination of <<K:-meanings2.6.1 Analysis of nouns (TL: Pragmatische Wortarten)2.6.2 Analysis of verbs (TG: verb = activity transforming theexternal world?)2.6.3 Analysis of adjectives2.6.4 Program

3. Interfaces

3.0 Data structure

3.1 Correspondences

3.2 KHS3.2.1 A KHS can not cross the borders of a TGE3.2.2 change: "predicate"/Semantics "Code Epistemologie"/Textual

Grammar.3.2.3 Cluster - analysis3.2.4 Where IUs do occur fulfilling two conditions:

3.3 Insights from (Expression-) SYNTAX3.3.13.3.3

3.4 SEMEME3.4.1

3.5 DEICTIC ELEMENTS (Pronouns, Adverbs etc.)3.5.13.5.2

3.6 SYSTEMATIC EXPLOITATION OF THE DATA BASE3.6.1 Function words constitutive meanings3.6.1.1 FW : CW - ratio3.6.1.2 Neighbourhood of CWs3.6.1.3 Isotopies and "Binnenwortschatz"3.6.1.4 Distribution of "Pragmatische Wortarten"3.6.1.4.1 Areas of dominant degree of abstraction3.6.1.4.2 Areas of dominant Path-types3.6.1.5 Synopsis of the different field types

3.7 DATA MINING tool

3.8 Transformation Tool

3.8.1 Tasks

3.8.2 insights to be transferred3.8.2.1 KHS (SEE ch. 2.1.1/2 )3.8.2.2 Renominalisation (SEE ch. 2.1.3 )3.8.2.3 Pronomina (SEE ch. 2.1.3 )3.8.2.4 Actors (SEE ch. 2.2 )3.8.2.5 Text Actants (SEE ch. 2.3 )3.8.2.6 Isotopies (SEE ch. 2.4 )3.8.2.7 Thema - Rhema (SEE ch. 2.4 )3.8.2.8 Segmentation (SEE ch. 2.5 )3.8.2.9 "Pragmatische Wortarten" (SEE ch. 2.6 )

3.8.3 TOP DOWN BOTTOM UP: Level + MEANING UNIT + Path

3.9 Graphics

4. URLs

5. Information retrieval

5.1 Interests

5.2 Methodological reflexions

6. Turning back to front

7. Implications

7.1 Actors7.1.1 Starting by Actors7.1.2 Shifting in the course of the text7.1.3 Illustration by grafical network

TRANSITION from SLANG1 to SLANG2

On the basis of SLANG1 different types of information are available:

(1) the text in itself had been defined, splitt off, clarifiedin respect to difficult readings,

(2) The program for segmentation into IUs established differentlists of traditional word classes (pronouns, conjunctionsetc.). Different modules of SLANG2 will have to reuse (andto edit) these lists.

(3) The SYNTAX-program e.g. offers complete breaking downs ofcompounds ("Schiffsjunge" |Schiff+s||jung+e|)

(4) The SYNTAX-program points to frequent sequences of words("...ein Brett vorm Kopf") as clich es.

Such types of information will be reused at different points in

SLANG2. - But first of all words and parts of words of the text

under consideration should be allocated to a traditional word class

and equipped by traditional caracterizations 1 .

As mentioned, we already dispose of a tool doing that(segmentation program of Lei Lei).

It will be the first task to establish that part of a programas modul of its own (remaining linked to its origin). So itwill be possible to access it from different points of SLANG2an to edit it.

The range of word classes should be completed: e.g. nouns,verbs, particles have to be added

Here is the place where knowledge from other sources can beimported (e.g. GermaNet).

Information about further traditional definitions should beinserted in these lists (Genus, Numerus, Determination).

With every new text these lists will be growing.

Aspects of security: Users may copy and use these lists, mayedit them, add new items according to their needs. Storing thatnew shape of the lists additions = new items are allowed, butno deletion of previous entries. 2

All tokens of the actual text that got a classification bytypes of these lists will be highlighted. So users see whichtokens still need to be treated (with automatic transfer to theother instances).

Problem of the membership of one word form of different lists.

The Data Base (see below ch. 1.4 ) will import informationsconcerning traditional attributes of a word form here.

1 See ch. 1.4 2 If in the act of storage the program observes that a previous

entry had been deleted in the most actual list then the previousentry gets a quotation mark. For the next user that serves as anindicator that he/she has to pay special attention to that ent-ry.

Any modul of SLANG2 presupposes that this programhad been executed at first.- choice and import of a text being described and interpreted- looking up in the Data Base for every token whether an analysis in terms of tr aditional categories is available. If YES: import!- If NO: user fills in the definitions requested. Storage of that new item in Data Base.

Not all wordclasses require the same additional attributes:

noun: + trKasus + trNumerus + trGenus + trDetermination

adjective: + trKasus + trNumerus + trGenus + trDetermination

trPro: + trKasus + trNumerus + trGenus

verb|auxiliary verb: + trPerson + trNumerus + traktiv|trpassiv+ trKonjug

wordclass definition but no additional analysis in the case of:NumeraliaAdverbPrepositionParticleInterjectionNegationConjunction

====================================================================

formal Structure

0. Content Units and Content functions

0.1 To deal with Semantics/Pragmatics we first have to isolate the

units that will represent our basis in content analysis:

expression level level of meaning

word formm meaning unit

n

ch1 ...ch

n

There is no one-to-one-relationship between word forms (specified as

sequence of characters) and meaning units. So we need a

meaning-transcription as starting point of all further analyses. We

do no more operate on the linear sequence of word forms.

Where we have to analyze compounds we should be allowed tosplit off the word form into its components. Each of thecomponents corresponds to a meaning unit:

Donau+dampf+schiff+fahrt+s+gesellschaft+s+kapitän

In that case we have 1 word form consisting of 8 separatecomponents. Each of them may be understood as representing ameaning unit . In Hebrew often one word form stands for a chainof three in german language. Even more complex are the data inagglutinative languages.

0.2 "meaning unit" may be understood in different ways:

(1) Defining a single element of meaning

( 1.1 ) differentiation between a selfsufficient meaning(SEMEME): <<K:...>> (see below), or a mere marker of arelation: <<F:...>>. The qualification "SEMEME" is given onlyto a selfsufficient meaning. 3

( 1.2 ) so it may happen that one SEMEME is preceded, embedded,followed by one or more markers of relation. Even in such acomplex form we speak of one selfsufficient meaning.

3 Other terms for that opposition: Autosemantika vs. Synsemantika .- "SEMEME" = one individual meaning that can be understood/re-presented as composition of different "Semes". A "Sem" is thesmallest element in the realm of meaning. e.g. <<Regal>> and<<VITRINE>> have many "Semes" in common but they differ in theseme: <<glass at frontside>>.

( 2) a single selfsufficient meaning can be expanded to agreater complex (SEMEME-Group)

( 3) an illocution unit (IU)

( 4) the sequence of IUs representing larger entities boundtogether by elementary means (as in a single IU). We call thatlarger entity "Makrosatz". 4

( 5) the sequence of IUs defined by representation of onecoherent KHS (dialogue) [may be missing]

( 6) the sequence of IUs defined by the unity of actors, placeand time (Szene, Zwischenbericht u.ä. - TGE = TextgrammatischeEinheit)

( 7) the sequence of TGEen defined by the coherent thematicfield (in Germanistik = "Episode"). See below 2.4.1: "Isotopy".No interruption of TGEen is allowed.

( 8) Sequence of TGEen defined by the coherent thematic field -but now interruption by other thematic fields ("Episoden") isallowed: TLE = Textlinguistische Einheit 5

The range of meaning units represents a hierarchy. See Appendix 1 +

2. Keep in mind that meaning units (5) and (7) are not yet

integrated there. The actual list of 8 meaning units is an enhanced

version.

0.3 The program under development should be able to deal with texts

of different languages. So starting the program one of the initial

questions has to be: In which language the text you want to analyze

is written? 6

For all categories by which the expression level in that specific

language is dealt with we need lists of the resp. terms (analogous

to the program: Segmention into IUs / Lei Lei). So answering the

question of language enables the program to pick up the correct list

4 It may consist of an IU introducing aphrastically a subject("Themasetzung"), followed by an IU referring to the subject,that may be described by a relative clause (= IU 3); then per-haps the predicate = action is mentioned, followed by separateIUs informing us about space and time. So in such an example 6IUs apparently form one statement beyond the level of a singleIU (= level of textual grammar).

5 So the text on the highest level is represented perhaps by asmall number of interwoven TLEen. Breaking a TLE at some pointand resuming it at a later stage causes tension and attention ofthe readers. -

6 Cf. the analogous question in the program of Lei Lei ("Segmenta-tion into Illocution units").

(e.g. of conjunctions, prepositions, personal pronouns,

demonstrative pronouns etc.) 7

On the contrary: the terminology for the analysis of the

semantic/pragmatic level does not depend on the specific language:

Vgl. "Kognitive Basiskategorien"

http://www-ct.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/ct/interaktiv/hauptbaum.h-

tml Or:

SQL-Database (vgl. Mato Bejic) or

Appendix 4 or

H. Schweizer, Computerunterstützte Textinterpretation (1995) Bd. iii

The kernel of the program consists in a tripartite structure the

elements of it have to been brought in relation by the user, and the

user should be helped by the program to accelerate the analysis by

different procedures:

7 Integrating the program of Lei Lei the user should be allowed tocontrol, add, delete etc. the lists of the lexical items of thatspecific language.

raw text in an in- hierarchy of Basic categories

dividual language meaning units = analyzing terms

with or without from smallest unchanged on

segmentation into (SEMEME) to different levels

IUs largest (whole some type of

(requires specific text): definition analysis with

lists in that of methodological additional terms

individual levels required

language)

relations established by the user

assisted by the program

0.4 Any meaning unit fulfills a function concerning a meaning unit

on the next higher level. So in principle we have two tasks:

(a) the description of the resp. meaning unit in itself (as shown

under ch. 0.3 )

(b) to define the function of that meaning unit in view of the next

hierarchic levelSememe

function1

Sememe-Group function

2

Illocution Unit function

3

Sequence of IUs function

4

KHS function

5

TGE function

6

Episode function

7

TLE function

8

TPE = whole text

0.5 Methodologically we import a text that underwent the

segmentation into IUs - either "by hand" or by using the program of

Lei Lei (within the frame of SLANG 1). At the top of each IU a

precise numeration is inserted. Within a IU the single/separate word

forms will be counted. That is the raw text mentioned above.

The first task within SLANG 2 will be to parallel the sequence of

word forms with their resp. semantic equivalents (=one type of

meaning units: <<K:...>> or <<F:...>>).

In the course of the analysis many different kinds of

semantic/pragmatic insights will be added between << ... >> or other

tags . All these aspects contribute to the meaning of that unit,

describing it literally or critically, using specific terms or

defining it by natural language [as in a lexicon entry], adding the

associative environmentsynonyms ( , e.g. <<BANK>>, <<GELDINSTITUT>>),antonyms ( , e.g. <<GROSS>>, <<KLEIN>>),hyperonyms ( , e.g. <<FAHRZEUG>> in rel. to <<AUTO>>),hyponyms ( , e.g. <<AUTO>> in rel. to <<FAHRZEUG>>),meronyms ( , e.g. <<LENKRAD>> in rel. to <<AUTO>>).

We ll have to model and structure carefully such a

semantic/pragmatic information complex.

The description of meaning units will be done by using "cognitive

basic categories" (see Appendix 4 ). In the case of "real nouns"

(<<BAUM>>, <<STEIN>> etc.) the path will be very short:

"PRÄDIKAT-statisch-autonom". That is equivalent to a renunciation of

a further description (that would be the task of special disciplines

e.g. geology - in the case of <<BERG>> - or biology - in the case of

<<ROSE>>) and it is the acknowledgement that we are dealing with

easily accessible and well known "objects" of the external world. We

do not process knowledge of specialists.

On the contrary nouns/meanings as <<HOFFNUNG>>, <<SCHWIMMEN>> etc.

don t point to objects but either to an inner emotional state or to

an activity. For such SEMEMES the "cognitive basic categories" offer

some specific paths: <<HOFFNUNG>>:

Code-IMAGINATION-prospektiv-optativ;

<<SCHWIMMEN>>:DEIXIS-Topologie-dislokativ/with further aspects as

"motion in fluid" etc. 8

You ll meet several labels serving to discern the different levels,

e.g.

Semantics comprising (see above 0.2) levels (1) - (3)

8 For further informations see ch. 2.6 .

Pragmatics/textual grammar comprising (see above 0.2) levels

(4) - (7)

Pragmatics/textlinguistics comprising (see above 0.2) level (8)

Pragmatics/textual pragmatics reaching that level by analysis

means that the text has been decribed by in many

respects. Whereas at the starting point of the

analysis the text had been splitted off in many small

parts (word forms or meaning units), the analysis

slowly proceeded, climbed up in the hierarchic

structure dealt with more and more larger units and

now reached again the level of the whole text. The

user now disposes of many insights in the literary

structure of the text and its function. The task of

text description has come to an end.

Up to now we have to respect the following maxims :

1. word forms and their position/counting are the startingpoint of our work, but they are not the basic unit underanalysis in semantics/pragmatics.

2. The meaning unit as point of reference of all analyses ofmeaning first has to be defined. Parallel to the string ofword forms the text so gets a second string of meaningunits.

3. At first every meaning unit will be treated separately andrestrictively.

4. During the course of semantic/pragmatic analysis more andmore definitions/=attributes can be added to that specificmeaning unit.

5. These additional definitions/insights may result from theuse of further lexica, dictionaries or from repeatedapplications of our "basic categories" used on differentmethodological levels.

0.6 A great challenge represents the fact that a proposition - with

its main elements (see Appendix 4 ):

Illocution ( Codes ( f ( a , b ) + Topology + Chronology))

only can be accepted and understood without problems when all

elements pass different tests. If one element or more gets different

interpretations in the course of critical examinations, 9 the

understanding of the whole IU is under discussion and has to be

modified .

Describing the meaning of an utterance in natural language (NL) such

a two step procedure of course is a kind of complication. Any

modelling of data structure has to take it into account. But at the

same time exact that switching is typical for NL opening the door to

poetic, funny, polite etc. language use. By making explicit such

mechanisms of double meanings it is even possible to detect some

of the intentions of the writer of the text as well as some of the

reactions on the side of hearers/readers.

In contrast to all functions we analyzed for literal meaning we

superpose now another interpretation - without erasing what we

described at the previous level of literal meaning. In the course of

analysis we re getting different descriptions of the same meaning

unit .

Both types of meaning (literal - second) coexist, the text

understanding becomes oscillating. So we have to describe:

(1) Which elements of the literal meaning have to get an

alternative interpretation?

(2) How the understanding of the same IU (or larger parts of

the text) is being affected by such "Verschiebungen"?

E.g. " Da freue ich mich aber " literally seems to be an expression ofpositive ("euphorisch") feeling (= literal meaning). Looking at theelements " da " (precise temporal information?) and " aber "(adversative, argumentative aspect) we become suspicious: the secondbut real meaning instead is the expression of negative/bad("dysphorisch") feeling and anger in an ironic or sarcastic way(second meaning).

Methodologically we should be able to trace exactly the way from

literal to the second meaning by "Verschiebungen" within our

semantic/pragmatic analyses.

What has been described here clearly can be allocated to "dataretrieval", i.e. to the way we are using the data. See Ch.5.

9 See 0.5 : For one meaning unit different, obviously conflictingterm-paths have been found on different methodological levels.

1. In a first step the software has to enable to collect manydata for one meaning unit . And we have to establish certainstandard taggings to address easily the different types ofattributes/informations.

2. The second step will be to define types of search strategieseach one picking out some of the collected attributes andoffering them to the user. On the basis of such an outputhe/she should be able to interpret these filtered data. 10

0.7 Example for double = critical reading of the same IU

critical second meaning units function test 11 tension meaning

"Da <<F:DEIXIS>> Chronologie

freue <<K:FREUEN>> Prädikat C.AXIOL.euphor. Code

ich <<K:SP/sg>> AXIOL. 1.Aktant dysph.

mich <<K:SP/sg>>

aber" <<F:adversativ>> Adjunktion

10 Even a highly sophisticated program for text analysis won t beable to do the interpretation of a text. That remains the taskof the user. But a program can present clearly all analyses me-anwhile stored and so give an insight to the literary processesa reader is confronted with. Such a program makes explicit thecomplex process of decypherment any reader is forced to. But innormal reading processes that decypherment is done implicitlyand mostly unconscious.

11 We use to examine the meaning units that semantically pretend tobe the PREDICATE on the level of textual grammar ; meaning unitsthat seem to represent objects, distinct entities (with thefunction of an ACTANT) are tested at the level of textlingui-stics .

B O T T O M U P

1. Semantical Transcription of the Illocution Units

In what follows you ll find included some proposals for graphical

conventions within the program under development. These proposals

can be changed / altered if the resp. aspect is taken into account

in another/better way.

1.1 Word form Sememe

1.1.1 Question for every word form: semantically constitutive or

not? 12

The program takes one IU after the other. Analyzing any word aiming

at paralleling every word form by a correspondent semantic

description. The treating of a IU is finished when all word forms

have got a semantic unit as counterpart (but see 1.1.2):

First IU: "Als Agentin war ihr nichts zu peinlich"

Expression level level of Meanings

"als" <<FW: >>

"Agentin" <<K:AGENTIN+KT/idef/

sg/fem+*PRAEDIKAT

-dynamisch-initiativ/

E1*>>

"war" <<FW: +DEIXIS-Chrono-

logie -relational-

vorzeitig>>

"ihr" <<K:KT/def/sg/fem>>

"nichts" <<K:NICHTS>>

"zu" <<FW: >>

12 See program: slang2/bottomup/seannala (Brunner, Hütter, Wolf -SS04).

"peinlich" <<K:PEINLICH

%UNANGENEHM%;

#SCHULDBEWUSST#>>

<<...>> correspondent semantic equivalent to a word (=unit of the

level of expressions). Different types of

semantic/pragmatic definitions may be included e.g. +...+

contains the semantic terminological analysis; *...*

contains the pragmatic wordtypes.

FW:/K: Functional word resp. semantically constitutive (=K:) (see

FREUNDLICH 1972).

FW: empty space: a semantical terminological definition is still

missing. To contend that between two words|meanings holds

a function is a semantic statement. Looking from here to

the expression level we may find very different items:

"contact position" as indicator of that function . e.g. "Dachdecker" "Dach" + "decker" - there is noinfix showing that both constitutive meanings have tobe understood as one constitutive meaning, but we seea remarkable kind of writing: omission of the blankbetween the two words.

" " - we have no explicit indicator, nevertheless weare sure that both meaning units form one greaterunit: "David, der Schuft, ist ..."

"infix" - is written to combine words in contactposition: "Handel sschule".

So semantically a function may be maintained in thefollowing cases:

contact position function word

infix(es)

<<K:[capitals]>> the word taken from the expression level now points

to the meaning of that expression. Immediately followed by

closing brackets - ">>" - says that a closer semantical

definition is still missing. Such a definition could be

appended between %...%, #...# etc. 13

13 Cf. Assoziator/MetaGer.

SP|KP|KT means "Sprecher/speaker" ("ich"|"wir" = 1. Person); KP =

"Kommunikationspartner/partner or addressee of the

speaker" ("du"|"ihr" = 2. Person); KT =

"Kommunikationsthema/subject of the speech ("er, sie/sg,

es, sie/pl" = 3. Person). Whereas SP and KP always are of

"definite" character, in the case of the KT a choice is

possible: definite or indefinite? Additionally the

question of sg/pl has to be answered. And finally -

depending on the evidence of the individual language - the

question of gender can be determined. 14 Where no gender

analysis will be done, we introduce at least an

interrogation mark ( ?). 15 See Appendix 6.

1.1.2 Transfer of these first analyses to further instances of the

same word form in the text

The program takes the first analysis - see above -, searches for

further instances of the word "als", asks the user whether he/she

wants to accept that analysis. If he/she answers by ENTER, that

analysis will be added. If the answer is "N" the instance is left

without semantic entry. So with further instances of "als" and -

after that - with the further analyses already made in the first IU.

"als" = <<FW: >>

14 The answer to that final question should be refused in all caseswhere we perhaps dispose of a grammatical evidence but where inevery day language we find it hard or impossible to allocate areal gender to that content. See e.g. " der Mond, la lune". Onthe contrary: On the expression level different conventions arein use - with no semantic relevance but as help - despite ar-bitrarily - to establish connections between words (and theremeanings) and to exclude some erroneous relations. E.g Il voyaitla lune apparu e a l est . It is a well established conventionthat the e points to the la - and not to Il . Whether we call thebasis of that connection as Gender-feminin or as pudding-connec-tion or somewhat else - that is not important. At least there isno background called "real gender".

15 As explained above: Structuring a text by using different gen-ders helps the reader in the reading process (to combine diffe-rent passages and to exclude others). And that mechanism functi-ons independently of the question whether the grammatical gendercorresponds to a correct real one. So by introducing the ? weare preparing the later strategy to make apparent that net ofcoherences in the text.

Every type of identical word form and identical semantic analysis

receives the same number - put between #...# at the end of the

entry. 16

"als" = <<FW: #1#>> [at all instances]

"Agentin" = <<K:AGENTIN+ #2#>> [at all instances]

There are cases where one word form (e.g. german "da") can takedifferent analyses:- "da" in locative sense is equivalent to a pronoun. So it has to

be described as <<K: >>;- "da" in causal sense - on the contrary - is <<FW: >> 17

That warns to blindly apply one decision for all further instancesof a word form in the text. The user needs the option to scrollthrough the instances of that specific word form. In the case ofclear analysis ("Butter"; "obwohl") he/she may use the button thattransfers the actual analysis to all other instances.

We have to work with three types of transfer :

1. Clear attributions of a semantical caracterization(<<F:>>|<<K:>>) to single word forms: what undoubtedly canbe identified (in traditional terms) as pronoun,interjection, conjunction, verb [in the case of conjugatedforms as gehst ], noun [in the case of devlined forms astisches ]. Such clear examples can be put into a list servingfor automatic tagging.

2. Uncertain attributions. "das" may serve as article (= <<FW:>>) or as relative pronoun (= <<K: >>). - See "da" justmentioned. - Analysis "by hand". - We need a concentrationof word forms of the same type of uncertainty .

3. Disambiguation by position rules: Up to now just single wordforms had been under observation. But further knowledge isavailable and helps to disambiguate the remainder ofunanalyzed word forms. E.g. we know position 1 of an IU."das" occuring at a position 2 or higher is no relativepronoun. 18 "der" immediately in front of a noun must be anarticle. etc. - Further tests are necessary to improve suchrules and to multiply them.

The user too has to recall the axiom that Semantics deals withliteral meaning and excludes metaphorical interpretations (evenhistorical metaphors). In cases like "auf der Basis von ..." onecould be inclined to interpret "auf der Basis" as unit, as"Umstandsbestimmung", and so as a complex <<FW: >>. But in our view

16 At a further stage of the semantic/pragmatic description thatmay help to display the inner-textual coherence.

17 Another example: What looks as a functional word sometimes beha-ves as constitutive meaning . /DER/ in German as article is func-tional word , but it can be used as pronoun = constitutive mea-ning .

18 More specified: "das" on position 2 may be preceded by a wordform of the type "preposition": "...das Sprungbrett, | auf daser sprang". At the same time "das" is not followed by a noun butby a pronoun and a verb. That equally prevents to identify "das"as "article = FW".

we first are confronted with a normal sequence of two <<FW: >> and a<<K: >>.

The scholar equally has to take into account a homogeneous level ofthe language under discussion. In German the word form "in"certainly has to be analyzed as <<FW: >>. As anglicism ("Der Songist in.") "in" in such cases is <<K: >>. So our analysis may not mixthe language levels - except utterances in foreign languages areincluded: those word forms/utterances should be tagged in preparingthe text (=SLANG 1). And any analysis further on will be valid forthat language.

1.1.3 The program offers the second IU - but now including the

semantic analyses just made.

The words that haven t yet got an analysis where treated as above

(see 1.1.1).

And only these new analyses will be pursued throughout the whole

text - as in 1.1.2.

1.1.4 Using the Data Base JOSEPH

The Data Base offers many individual analyses containing in an

unstructered way (i.e. as part of the Memo). Sememes: <<...>>.

It should be explored, whether that knowledge can be used in our

semantic analysis. Treating a word form - e.g. "nichts" - and

defining it semantically - e.g. <<K:NICHTS>> - should start a search

in the data base. There it is possible that in the frame of a Memo

<<NICHTS>> (always without further attributes) will be found. In

that case it would be useful to offer the whole data base entry to

the user, so that he/she may decide whether he/she wants to copy and

to import the analysis mentioned in the data base entry, or not.

The other type of information being available is the illustration of

paths through the trees of the "Basic categories". 19 There is some

overlap with the data base JOSEPH. But additionally we find there

equivalents in further languages: Hebrew 20 , German, French,

English, Russian. There no formulation of Sememes in <<...>> can be

19 See: homepage, then buttons "Forschung", "Semantik", "interak-tiv"; cf. the address mentioned above Ch. 0.3 .

20 In direct writing, and not in cryptic transcription as in thedata base.

found. It s possible to search on the level of word forms at least.

If I want to find equivalents for "als" all examples containing

"als" should be listed as well as their resp. semantic/pragmatic

analysis ("path"). Such an overview may help the user to find the

correct analysis and to remind the other possibilities. If a good

example will be found it should be possible to copy that path

easily. 21

Meanwhile it is clear (by information coming from Mato Beji c), that

1. within the Data Base searches can be done even in the(unstructured) field of the Memos. At least the semantictranscriptions of meanings - <<...>> - can be found, andoften further explanations.

2. Importing new semantic informations into the Data Base maybe done by going the following steps:

(a) the program forces the user to markup the segment ofthe text+ he/she wants to analyze (e.g. a single wordor a word group)

(b) the program asks on which methodological level theanalysis will be done (Semantics, textual grammar,textlinguistics or textual pragmatics)

(c) the analysis is done - firstly - by using a path fromthe "cognitive basic categories" and

(d) the analysis is done - second - by filling thecontainer of the memo, perhaps by using the

following structure - of course equally SGML-tags maybe used:

(aa) At the top of any memo the semantictranscription will be located: e.g. <<GEHEN>>,then

(bb) different definitions of that meaning - importedfrom different external sources may be added,the first one e.g. within {{...}}

(cc) the second one within [[...]]

(dd) a free explanation may be inserted between #...#

21 It is hoped that by continued additional entries that thesaurusof examples will grow up pointing to items in different langua-ges. On the other side - realistically it must be said - thedata base JOSEPH actually has a rather closed character. And itis cryptic because of its treating of a text in old Hebrew,transcribed in a rather unusual way. - Of course, the best solu-tion would be to integrate the thwo sources and so to deal onlywith one complex data base - containing examples in differentlanguages and scriptures.

(ee) *...* offers informations of the WordNet-type(syno-, hyper, hypo-, meronyms etc.)

1.1.5 Proper Names

Among the mass of "constitutive meanings" usually a subgroup can be

identified representing "Names". Within these some differentiations

can be made and they now have to be added by special taggings to the

resp. "constitutive meaning". E.g.

"Karl" = first name = <<fn>>...<</fn>>"Sacharow" = family name = <<n>>...<</n>>"BRD" = political name = <<pn>>...<</pn>>"HSV" = group name = <<gn>>...<</gn>>"München|Isar|Everest" = local name = <<ln>>...<</ln>>"Gott|Satan" = spirits name = <<sn>>...<</sn>>"Mercedes 300SL" = name of an object = <<on>>...<</on>>remainder = name of another category = <<rn>>...<</rn>>

In some languages (French, English, Dutch etc. - but not in German

with its frequent capitalization) a special Proper Name Parser can

be useful. 22

1.1.6 Adding attributs: Noun or Verb

Any word form being classified as <<K:...>> usually belongs to one

of the two traditional word classes: Noun or Verb. We should use

these classes as starting point of the analysis on two reasons:

1. These classes represent a na ıve but widespread type oflanguage use. In every-day speech the equations are in use:substantive = real thing; verb = action. Under criticalexaminations these equations very often will prove to bewrong. But description of the literal meaning on the levelof semantics and at the same time description of na ıveunderstanding of utterances we have to enter the analysis bythese equations.

2. To tag <<K:-Meanings by one of both classes in most cases iseasily done: often there are markers pointing to a certainclass. Depending on the particular language articles and

22 Cf. VAN DALEN-OSKAM, VAN ZUNDERT, LLC 19/3 (2004) 293: "... weuse a fairly simple rule to distinguish proper names in Dutchtexts. In modern written Dutch it holds that types which arecapitalized but do not appear as non-capitalized tokens in thesame text are probably proper names. So one does expect to find,for example Tafel ( Table ) and tafel ( table ), at the be-ginning or in the middle of a sentence. But we do not expect tofind the word simon , which does not exist in Dutch; the name

Simon is always expected to be written with an initial capi-tal."

demonstrative/possessive pronouns (and...?) point to nouns("der/mein/dieser Baum") whereas personal pronouns arefollowed by verbs ("ich/du/er... geh[]").

Users should be provided by lists of such word classes (import from

the program of Lei Lei?) - or users first should define these

classes (perhaps there isn t yet a list of these word classes

available for that particular language). On that basis the program

tags all nouns/verbs automatically where there is clear evidence.

All other instances of <<K-meanings have to be tagged "by hand" -

with transfer automatically to all further instances of the same

word form/meaning.

1.2 Meaning units

Any word form being classified as <<K:...>> and standing alone (i.e.

not related to a <<F:...>> - see below) can be taken as meaning

unit . Language users are able to construe a mental reality , a

concept i.e. the meaning usually = conventionally attached to that

word form. 23

A second type is given wherever the analysis had been: FW

(=functional word e.g. preposition) we must search for complementary

units:

23 see Appendix 18

Expression level level of Meanings

"the" <<FW: >>

"hat" <<K:HUT>>

"of" <<iFW: >> 24

"the" <<FW: >>

"queen" <<K:KÖNIGIN>> >>

So we get semantic units of second order , i.e. more complex. We need

a different kind of naming these greater units. That step

illustrates very well that we are leaving the structure of the text

as we perceived it on expression level . Now starts what s typical

for the content level : the hierarchization (in contrast to mere

sequentiality).

see Appendix 10

To form such greater units languages use only few types. The lists

of determiners and prepositions is very restricted. So one could

think of a semi-automatic analysis where all identical types of e.g.

a PP (prepositional phrase) are offered to the user, who has to

confirm or refuse the analysis.

The program should learn the analyses the user gives for a certain

configuration. So just that analysis can be offered to the user when

the next instance of the same configuration has to be treated. E.g.

"the" <<FW: >>

"hat" <<K:HUT+KT/def/sg+>>

"the" as <<FW:...>> adds to "hat" the information that this is a

well known thing ("definite") whereas we learn from "hat" itself,

that it is "KT" and "singular". These three attributes are valid for

the whole meaning unit.

"of" <<iFW:ADJUNKTION-Deskription-Prädikation- statisch-relational-Pertinenz-Zuordnung>>

"the" <<FW: >>

"queen" <<K:QUEEN+KT/def/sg/fem+>>

24 = i ndependent f unctional word: pointing to the fact that thereholds a relation between the complex "hat" and the complex "que-en". An "iFW" cannot been bound to one complex exclusively.

(a) "queen" in its own ("natural") meaning has the attribute of

gender "feminine" - or V2 25 and the attribute "singular" - (b)

"queen" inherits from "the" the qualification "definite". - (c)

"queen" - indicated by "of" - is a subordinated information, it is

an ADJUNKTION of the most common type: "Deskription...Zuordnung".

And within that structure it takes the place of "Signifikant",

whereas "hat" has the role of "Signifikatum". 26

Now the units are established semantics/pragmatics is processing:

meaning units - complex or simple. - The next task is to establish

paths of terms and the range of different levels of text analysis.

1.3 Terms and Levels

1.3.1 Terms

The terms we are going to use are called "Basic categories" for

content analysis. You find these in:

http://www-ct.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/ct/interaktiv/hauptbaum.h-

tml

Any key term leads to a tree of terms and its definition is implied

in its specific path: 27

25 Verweissystem2 - see Appendix 6 . On the other side we need a

tagging for the traditional "grammatical gender" = Verweissys-tem

1 . Hereby the information is stored that in German "das Mäd-

chen" grammatically is neutre despite the fact that in Verweis-system

2 "Mädchen" is "feminine".

26 This insight entails on the next methodological level (analysisof the IU = most commonly: analysis of subject-predicate-relati-on) that one only has to deal with the "Signifikatum". The sub-ordinate information ("Signifikant" - possibly several ones,forming in itself a hierarchy) has no direct influence to theanalysis of predication. See Appendix 14 .

27 That is an important aspect for the names of some terms occurseveral times and can be found as nods in different trees. Soone could presuppose that the meaning of that term name is thesame at all instances. Such a presupposition would be totallywrong because the changing frame of the individual instance ofthe term would be neglected. Instead the path leading to the

AdjunktionPrädikationAktantenCodesDeixisIllokutionLexempragmatik

1.3.2 Levels

As levels where that set of terms will be applied we use:

SemantikTextgrammatikTextlinguistikTextpragmatik

There are two peculiarities:

1. "Adjunktion" can be regarded as a level below "Semantik".But in addition to the standard set of terms there are somefurther and specific categories involved. Therefore wepreferred to treat "Adjunktionen" not as a separate "level"but as specific category of "terms".

2. "Lexempragmatik" implies too the whole range of the other"Basic categories". But that category is restricted to onespecific level: "Textlinguistik" and does not occur on theothers. And as in the case of "Adjunktionen" there are somefurther specific terms in use (the caracterization of a nounaccording to its degree of abstraction: E1/2/3 resp.P1/2/3).

1.3.3 Computer assisted analysis

We should aim at a procedure advancing in another way than has been

done in the time where the computer served only as a means for

storage data (Data Base).

The analysis now comprises the following elements (each of them has

to be specified further more):

Choice of meaning unit that has to be described. The programoffers one Meaning Unit as defined previously. It

term always has to be taken into account too. E. g. "initiativ"in the tree "Prädikation" has a meaning (=path) different from"initiativ" in "Codes-Axiologie".

isn t necessary to follow the text sequentially, butwe need explicit strategies. 28

Choice of level/terms We want - (1) - to define the level ofanalysis on which the description shall be valid. And- (2) - the correct term path from the "Basiccategories" shall be applied to the Meaning Unit.

Reuse of the first analysis In some cases what has beenanalyzed on the level e.g. of "Semantik"automatically can be transferred (and transformed) tothe level of "Textgrammatik ".

Critical Analysis Already within that first access to thedescription of a Meaning Unit we may add insights ofhigher levels. 29

So we need

a more elaborated data structure

a transformation of that data structure for the communicationwith Data Base JOSEPH

strategies concentrating the different types of analysis (andtransferring them to all similar cases automatically)

and we need a GUI that leads the user savely and transparentlythrough that complex type of analysis

1.3.4 Data Bases

In different respects the term "Data Base" will be used. To avoid

confusion the following explanation is given. In addition: the term

"Modul" stands for a computer program solving specific tasks.

28 E. g. we are describing a MU like "of the queen". The path ofterms will be taken from "Adjunktion". In such a case it wouldmake sense to go to the next MU starting with "of", because theprobability is high, that equally the same path of terms can beapplied - in the window actually open.

29 E.g. " the queen not only is "Adjunktion" on the level of "Seman-tik". But at the same time we can introduce the knowledge, thatqueen is not the designation of an object but it implies a rela-tion (emperor subjects), a hierarchy. So at all instances of"queen" we can insert automatically that insight belonging to"Textlinguistik" using path terms from "Lexempragmatik".

INTERFACE receiving the text with segmentations intoIllocution Units from SLANG1

Data Base3

Modul1 integrating

creating definitions from ...SEMANTIC other sources, UNITS e.g. GermaNet

Modul2

attribution of DATA BASE

2 level+terms to

communication semantic unitsbetween moduls = Bottom-Up and otherdata bases

DATA BASE1

= updated DATA BASE Mod.2

1 Mod.

2

2 Mod.

2

3

"JOSEPH" (mySQL) GUI history acce- the results will lera- be stored there tor needed: transformation of TOP DOWNdata structures; amplification of the data base Modul

8

Prag.WAModul

7

.

1

Isotopies Modul

5 Modul

6 Modul

9

Dialogues Actors Modul7

.

2 ...

Thema/Rhema

DATA MINING complex search strategies in view of semantic/pragmatic analyses

INTEGRATING RESULTS FROM SYNTAX see SLANG1: analysis of expression structure of the text

See 1.1.4

Now the units are established semantics/pragmatics is processing:

meaning units.

Equally the terms and the range of different levels of text analysis

are established.

So it is possible to proceed to practical text analysis

Two types of filling-in the data base:

A) User defines the level of interpretation. User chooses themeaning unit that shall be described and he/she chooses theappropriate term path. So the relation: term-path meaningunit ( expression level) on the resp. level ofinterpretation is established.

Additionally:

To guarantee or at least to help the user to do consistentanalyses we install two items:

- any term-path the user takes into considerationstimulates a window with a short definition of that term(incl. path and level) in NL [content has to be proposedby H.S.]

- equally a history recalls the previous allocations ofthat term/path/level to meaning units. So users maycontrol whether their decision will be conform to pastpractice.

B) Meanwhile results from the TOP-DOWN-Analysis should beavailable. These including their codifications can betransformed into the data structure of BOTTOM-UP-Analysis.In that new format these results will be stored in the DataBase.

1.3.5 Meaning Units and Data Base terms

Segmentations Data BaseMU

1 24 meaning units

MU2 31 sememe groups

MU3 16 illocution units

MU4 ??? (true Predicate)

MU5 9 dialogs

MU6 22 macro sentences

MU7 ??? (TGE)

MU8 ??? (stylistic features)

MU9 ??? (TLE)

1.4 MEANING UNIT of the first type: data structure of MU1 - Abstract1

model

See ch. 0.2; No. (1)

That meaning unit represents the starting point of the analysis.Proceeding more and more to higher methodological levels the shapeof what will be understood then as MEANING UNIT changes. SeeAppendix 1/2 . But all smaller and previous meaning units remainembedded in that hierarchic structure. Demonstrating thatgraphically the numerotation of ch. 0.2 will be reused.

Meaning Unit1 constitutive meaning

(with or without function words)

Reusing that graph on higher methodological levels all embeddedmeaning units normally will consist of several instances. E. g.

"Und der Airbus startete zum ersten Mal"(1) "Air"+"bus" are related as "Adjunktion". "bus" issignifikatum , "air" = signifikant .(2) Related as "Adjunktion" are equally "ersten" + "Mal".

On IU-level we will address only "bus" to define it as"1.AKTANT" resp. "Mal" as "Code ASPEKTE" (relation indicator"zu(m)"). The units serving as "Adjunktionen" then had beendescribed already.

(3) We still have "startete" as constitutive meaningcontributing to predication threefold:

(a) it contains a constitutive meaning: <<STARTEN>>. Tounderstand that meaning definitions from lexica couldbe imported. Or a definition by componential analysiscould be done. 30 Or the net of terms as used inWordNet/GermaNet may help to define that individualmeaning (see ch. 0.5 ).

(b) <<STARTEN>> interpreted abstractly is understood as akind of Action, a process done by will and competence .Whatever will be the subject: it is said by<<STARTEN>> that the subject is able to perform thataction - in contrast to mere underlying a process. Wewill say: <<STARTEN>> is a predicate of the type:DYNAMISCH- INITIATIV .

(c) the verb in conjugated form usually is interpreted aspointing to <<3.Pers.sg. - i.e. the theme about whichsomething is said>>. That reference is empty in itselfbut congruent with "bus" - see above. So we know thatit is the "bus" that performed the action of<<STARTEN>>.31

So the higher unit "IU" is constructed on the basis of threecomponents judged as relevant for the concept "IU":"bus"|[3.pers.sg.] + Predicate "action" + content <<STARTEN>>.

The Predicate received an additional description: "zum ...Mal"; "Mal" is described by "ersten".

The Subject [=1.Aktant] "bus" received an additionaldescription by "air".

" und ... " - semantically we have an iFW - apparently ofpragmatic value (concatenation of several IUs).

30 Using a few semes helping to define that meaning in oppositionto other similar meanings (e.g. <<ABHEBEN>>, <<LOSGEHEN>>,<<ANFANGEN>>, <<AUFBRECHEN>> etc.

31 One could maintain that the "bus" is only a machine without"will" and "competence". So strictly speaking the engineers andthe pilots are the subjects doted by "will" and "competence".Such an objection is correct but already represents a criticalpragmatic analysis of the linguistic data. Its the resolution ofa stylistic feature. But in semantics, doing the first step ofcontent analysis, we follow exactly what is expressed literally .

That may serve as background explanation for in the graphs you willfind plural: "Meaning unit s" on deeper levels.

====================================================================

Meaning Unit1 "Meaning Unit" of first order1

represents one and only one<<K:...>> constitutive meaningaccompanied bynone, one or more<<FW:...>> - function wordsleft column: our DB termsin other systemsmiddle/right: correspondences

| WordNet |

<<FW: >> 32 | |tr Wortart1: | |Prp|Conj| | |Atcl|Itj|Neg| | |AuxV|Ptc|Conn | |tr Wortart2: 33 | |conc|caus|final| | |consec|compar| | |condit| | |indknowl|temp| | |locat|others 34 | |tr Wortart3 = Conn: | |kopul|disj | | |advers|nektiv 35 | |tr Wortart4: 36 | |explic|emph| | |

32 We aim at defining function words in a twofold manner: (1) Whatis listed by tr Wortart1 are the very traditional categories. Sowe allocate one of these categories to a function word. (2) Notalways but rather often traditionally a semantic interpretationis added ("finale Konjunktion", "Präposition des Ortes"). So ina second step we have a look for caracterizations of type tr Wor-tart2-4. - So, loglly, there is a border between tr Wortart1 andtr Wortart2.

33 Vgl. Appendix 5 . - "AuxV" = "Hilfsverb" = auxiliary verb. "Prp"= "Präposition". "Ptc" = "Partikel" ( Oh). "Itj" = "Interjektion"( Hoppla ). "Neg" = "Negationswort" ( nicht ). "Konj" = "Konjunkti-on, logische" ( weil, wenn ), "Conn" = "Connector" ( und, aber,oder, weder...noch ).

34 Tr aditional caracterization of conjunctions as concessive ("ne-vertheless"), causal ("therefore"), final ("damit"), consecutive("so dass"), indirect knowledge ("ob"), temporal ("sobald"),locative ("bis"), conditional ("wenn", "falls"), others - per-haps some term is still missing.

35 That are our terms to discriminate und; oder; aber nicht; weder... noch .

36 This Wortart comprises "Explikativa" as: "d.h., also, als ob"or "emphatic" elements as "ausschließlich, deutlich".

<<K: >>| flag /Einzelsprache | |Tr aditional caracterizations: 37 | |tr Genus: 38 masc|fem|neutr|? 39 | |tr Numerus: sg|pl|dual | |tr Determination: det|indet | |tr Kasus: Nom|Gen|Dat|Akk|Abl | |tr Konjug: Ind|Konjunk|Imp | 40 | |Diathese: tr aktiv| tr passiv | |tr Person: 1.|2.|3. | |tr Tempus: Vergh|Ggw|Zuk 41 | |tr Wortart: noun|verb|adj | | | num|neg|adv | |tr Pro: PersP|PossP|DemP | | | IdefP|Deic|RelP|NegP 42 | |Additional attributes: | | mass noun, Num-noun, | | Property, Negation 43 | | Region | getRegions |------specification | getRegionMembers | tr abbr.| tr acronym 44 | |Link to complex

n | |

[Determination/Numerus] 45 | |Logical Relations: | |---specification (=Meronym) 46 | |------specification | getPartMeronyms 47 | ------allocation | getMemberMeronyms 48 | ------mass | getSubstanceMeronyms 49 | ---identity(=Synonym) | |---classification(=Hyponym) 50 | getInstanceHyponyms |

37 See the opening sheet of that paper: reuse of existing grammati-cal definitions of words.

38 "tr" means: "traditional" understanding: !das Mädchen" is "neu-tral" in German.

39 In English most nouns are used without specific "grammaticalgender".

40 Konjugationsart: Indikativ, Konjunktiv, Imperativ.41 Deliberately that are only raw characterisations on two reasons:

(1) Individual languages differ greatly in their categories(e.g. french imparfait [allait] , pass e simple [alla] et parfait[est all e] . (2) A coherent description of temporal structure isnot a question of morphology but of a pragmatic description ofthe whole text.

42 In all cases: empty informations, representants of the full in-formation found beyond or below in the text: PP = PersP = Perso-nal pronoun; Poss = PossP = Possessive Pronoun; DP = DemP = De-monstrative Pronoun; Deic = Deiktikon (e.g."dort, hier, so");RelP = Relative Pronoun; IdefP = Indefinite Pronoun ("man","jemand", "irgendwelche"); NegP = Negative Pronoun ("keiner").

43 E. g. "das Wasser", "die Elf", "das Gelbe [vom Ei]", "dasNichts".

44 E. g. "for example" resp. the SLANG project.45 See Appendix 646 E. g. "die Hand" ist Teil des Körpers (und begegnet normalerwei-

se nicht getrennt von ihm).47 "Flügel", "Rumpf" sind Teile der Gesamtheit "Flugzeug".48 "Roman Alphabeth" is composed of "A", "B", "C" etc. [WordNet].49 "Schokolade" besteht u.a. aus "Kakao".50 X Y, e.g. "Schüler der Klasse 5b".

---hyperonym 51 |getHypernyms |---holonym 52 | |------specification | getPartHolonyms 53 | ---allocation 54 | |---negation(=Antonym) | getAntonyms |---Proper Name | |Free definitions: 55 | |Definition

1 #...# | |

Definitionn %...% | |

Represents: | |Isotopy

1 #...# | getHypernyms |

| getTopics |------specification | getHyponyms | ------specification | getTopicMembers | Isotopy

n #...# | |

. . .Metaphors | getUsageMembers | Language Type | getUsages | Points to: | | Reference noun + position 56 | |Critical analysis of | |noun|verb|adjective: 57 | |TxtLi:LEXPRAG [PATH+E1|2|3] 58 | |TxtGr:PATH+TxtLi:[P1|2|3] 59 | |Semantik:PATH+TxtLi:[A1|2|3] 60 | |

It is possible that in an IU an isolated FW will be left withoutconnection to a <<K: >>-meaning. That is typical for conjunctions(subordinating dass, weil, falls ... but equally coordinativeconjunctions at the top of an IU: und, aber, weder, noch ). Theseisolated FW: will get their relations on the first level ofpragmatics: Textual Grammar.

51 E.g. "Schulklasse" in relation to "Schüler/Schülerin.52 E.g. "Schule" in relation to "Schüler/Schülerin, Lehrer, Bänke,

Tafel, Hausmeister, Turnhalle usw."53 "Flugzeug" ist die Gesamtheit, zu der "Rumpf" gehört.54 E. g. "die Schule gehört der Stadt" = "Zuordnung", ALIENABLE

relation, Haben-Relation .55 We need a tool searching and importing such definitions, inser-

ting them into the DB in a free format, appending the source (asprecise as possible) as metadata.

56 Case of Anaphors/Kataphors. See Ch.2.2.1. - If a meaning unithad been analyzed as: "noun + trPerson: 1." we are confrontedwith Personal Pronoun "ich" or "mein". If the analysis had been:"noun + trPerson: 3." a wordform like "er" or "sein" or "die-ser", "jener" is implied. So a full information is needed andthe position of the resp. reference noun in the text.

57 It may be done in two ways: (a) bottom up : on the resp. levelthe appropriate PATH will be attributed. In that case the defi-nition of abstraction degree is still missing. - (b) top-down(see ch. 2.6): one has to look up whether (a) already had beendone. If not: PATHS will be determined. In all cases: definitionof abstraction degree.

58 See ch. 2.6.159 See ch. 2.6.260 See ch. 2.6.3

1.5 Filling in the container MEANING UNIT

The data structure "Meaning Unit" offers the possibility to store

different types of information. And remembering the differentiations

of Appendix 10 we can do the following groupings:

MU, but only "c"-component :

1. <<K: >> at start of the analysis will be inserted by users- and then transferred semi automatically to furtherinstances of the same wordform .

2. The "tr..."-items should be imported from dictionaries.

4. Logical Relations may be picked e.g. from GermaNet orLeipzig.

5. Free definitions" may come from Lexika.

6. Isotopies will be imported from ch. 2.4

7. Resolution of Deictica will be imported from ch. 2.2.1.2

8. Critical analysis of noun will be imported from ch. 2.6

Whole MU/MU :

3. [Determination/Numerus] has to be done by users and thentransferred semi automatically to further instances of thesame meaning unit (represented by the same word forms). Thepaths needed can be looked up in Appendix 6 .

Theoretical background: In trad. grammar it is spoken of"Kongruenz" between verb + noun ("die Bäume blühen"), 61 or between noun + adjective ("die blaue Forelle()"). 62

Our position diverges: On semantic level we attribute theaspect of determination/numerus only to nouns. We argue that -semantically thinking - it would be nonsense to attributedetermination/numerus to properties ( adjective) or predicates( states, processes, actions). 63

Reflection: What has been described beyond is a kind of "Preparationof semantic/pragmatic analysis".

Now the analysis can start. Informations accessible inMeaning Units or provided by the TOP-DOWN-procedure maybe reused to accelerate the analysis and to make it moresecure and coherent.

61 Both words activating the "plural form" - that is said despitethe fact, that "blühen" is opaque. It could be infinitive aswell.

62 Of course "die" is opaque. It could be "Plural" as well. Equally"blaue" etc. The interpretation is a conclusion from the obser-vation that "Forelle" has no final "-n" that would point to Plu-ral . So far the contention of "Kongruenz" is very benevolent andnot really supported by surface (expression) level.

63 What normally is called "Kongruenz" turns out to be a mostlyopaque pattern of strings (expressions) that can be interpretedby one term dating from determination/numerus-tree.

But up to now nothing had been said about the storage ofthese data. That has to be resolved internally (DATABASE

2 , finally export to DATA BASE

1

1.6 Relation between Meaning Units (MU or MU ): SEMEME-Group = MU2 2

1.6.1 Theory and explanation

Level of analysis: SEMANTICS [that information - changing according

to the level of analysis - has to be added to any analysis using

basic categories ]

Any meaning unit containing one <<K:...>> (and perhaps one or more

indicators of a function ) can be expanded to a more complex meaning

unit: SmGr (see Appendix 10 ).

The indicators for such an expansion can be manifold - or there may

occur no sure indicator so that all depends on the interpretation of

the user:

1. No indicator is given in cases like: "David, der König, ..."- The comma is ambiguous. 64 By interpretation we see that"David" and "the king" point to the same person. On thesurface level nothing else than mere juxtapposition can bestated. See additional descriptions: Cola Cola light .

2. Means like Genitive ending/certain article ("Haus d esKönig s") or certain prepositions ("hat of the queen")indicate that the meaning unit is part of a sememe group.

3. Sometimes small words classify the following words asexplanation of another meaning unit, e.g. "nämlich, undzwar, z.B., d.h. ...".

4. Easy to detect are and, or, neither...nor, but not explicitmarkers of a Sememe-Group: "Hund und Katz", "Adam oder Eva","Katz aber nicht Maus", " weder Adam noch Eva".

See the example above: Apparently <<HAT>>(incl. FW) and

<<QUEEN>>(incl. FWs) are put together to express a certain

relationship: it now will be specified by a path from Basic

categories : ADJUNKTION...

64 In a sentence like: "David, der König, der Oberhofmeister undsein Pferd ..." one would presuppose 4 different entities.

Theoretically one could imagine an external relation: "x" and"y" are separate entities, but now it is said, that "x" has "y"( alienable relation). The other possibility is an inalienablerelation: "x" is part of "y". We follow the assumption that thealienable relation is the normal, unmarked state(Haben-Relation, Zuordnung, allocation), whereas to express aninalienable relation would force the reader to express itclearly ("x is part of y" = specification): in our example thatisn t done, so we analyze that relation as "Zuordnung".

This being done the program will offer for all further instances of

"of the ..." the function of "Zuordnung" between the related Meaning

Units. The user has to confirm it or to add a new semantic

characterisation of the resp. semantic unit. And so with other

instances where an explicit indicator is given.

On the actual level any SEMEME-Group represents a MEANING UNIT2

Meaning Unit2 SEMEME-Group

Meaning Unit s1

Wherever we defined a Sememe-Group a special pair of tags/links

should be inserted into the list of attributes:

meaning unit1 meaning unit3

"der reiche Baron in mittleren Jahren"

| |

meaning unit2 meaning unit4

meaning unit2 describes meaning unit1 [Type: Description + PATH]is Signifikant is Signifikatum



Such links/tags are necessary because the relation between the two

Meaning Units may hold in a greater distance. 65

A Path from the "Basic categories/Adjunktionen" has to be inserted.


The program assists users in combining two meaning units by relation

of ADJUNCTION. Within one IU there may occur rather complex

agglomerations of such pairs.

0. Any DB entry that will follow gets the information (flag)that we are working on the level of "Semantics".

1. The first IU of the text will be shown to the user. Thequestion: Are there Adjunctions?

65 Especially in the case of "Adjunktion-Explikation". E. g. "DerRobert(=Signifikatum) geht bei Minusgraden schwimmen, derDepp(=Signifikant)".

2. If no: Next IU. - If yes: Users have to define theSignifikatum (by clicking) and then the second meaning unitrepresenting the signifying function ( Signifikant ).

3. Between these two meaning units holds a certain type ofAdjunction (Koordination, Deskription, Explikation,Parenthese).

4. Within that type the appropriate PATH has to be selected.

5. By regular expressions it is possible to offer similarconstructions to users with the question whether they shouldreceive the same analysis. 66

6. The same with all occurences of "und|oder|weder...noch|aberetc." But in that case all instances of such words inposition 1 of an IU have to be excluded. 67

1.7 Function of Meaning Units (simple or complex = Sememe-Group)

within a single IU Second type of relations between Meaning

units: IU

1.7.1 Theory and explanation

Level of analysis: SEMANTICS

Semantically any Illocution Unit has to been understood as a

sequence consisting of: MU | SmGr | ifw 68

On the actual level any Illocution unit represents a MEANING UNIT3

66 E.g. if we analyzed "[Noun|constitutive meaning] der|des[Noun|constitutive meaning]" then all other cases of "Geniti-ve"-relation are candidates for the same Type+Path combination:"Adjunktion-Deskription-Prädikation-statisch-relational-Perti-nenz-Zuordnung". - It would be helpful to use from 1.4 the in-formation that we are dealing with nouns . That is more specificthan the mere information that there are two "constitutive mea-nings".

67 These have to be analyzed on the level of Textual Grammar, see1.8.2 .

68 See Appendix 10 in its corrected version. It is thought of enti-ties of the type "MU " having got their place within a SmGr al-ready had been analyzed.

Meaning Unit3 Illocution Unit

Meaning Units2 SEMEME-Group

Meaning Units1 constitutive meaning


The use of these categories serves to parallel the sequence of pure

strings (expression level) by a semantic segmentation/representation

of the text. 69

Because there is no one-to-one-relationship between the twostructures we face the following practical problem : Semanticshas a certain amount of keywords/paths to apply. And often itcan be seen that several semantic aspects will coincide in oneMU. E. g. "(1) Er ging hinaus (2) und schlug die Tür zu". TwoIUs - the second semantically represented as:und ifwschlug MU a die MU b Tür zu

A semantic analysis will have to address several times MUa :

MUa = PRÄDIKAT-dynamisch-initiativ= AKTANT-1.Aktant-undifferenziert= DEIXIS-Chronologie-relational-vorzeitig

It will be one important task of the level of Pragmatics todissociate these implications, to make and represent themexplicitly and so to develop the semantic representation.

From the range of "Basic categories" only the following trees now

have to been used.

PRÄDIKATAKTANTCODESDEIXIS-TopologieDEIXIS-ChronologieILLOKUTION

To address the sequence of Meaning Units we need three types of

target in an IU:

69 Implied informations, not represented in a discrete string, upto now have not yet been made explicit. That will be the task ofPragmatics ("Objektivierung des Korpus").

1. Elements: MU | SmGr | ifw2. Whole IU 70

3. 71


All meaning units in an IU are of interest that have not been

determined as "Signifikant" at the level of Adjunctions. We now are

dealing only with the remainder.

0. Any DB entry that will follow gets the information (flag)that we are working on the level of "Semantics".

1. The first IU is offered to the user. The meaning units stilllacking an analysis are highlighted (i.e. excluding the"Signifikanten" from the level of Adjunctions).

2. Users have to answer the question: "Is that an phrastic oran aphrastic IU?" - If aphrastic , we keep that answerand the analysis on that stage is finished. - If phrastic :

3. A new window opens showing the list of all main categoriesnecessary for the description of a phrastic IU :Illocution, Codes, Actants, Predicate, Deixis: Topology,Deixis: Chronology. The user has to do the analysis in allthese fields. The program will proceed to the next IU onlyif all categories have been used for description.

4. The procedure is the same in all instances: The user marksup a meaning unit, then clicks to the resp. main category,then the whole range of paths of that category is offered,the user chooses the appropriate PATH. So the relationbetween that meaning unit (incl. its precise address in thetext) and the category/PATH will be stored.

5. Analyses pertaining to the whole IU, not to a specific partof it (e.g. Illocution): we need a symbol expressing thatthe resp. analysis is valid for the whole IU. That symbolcan equally be used in all the cases where a category needed(e.g. Topology) has no anchor point within the text.

6. We need a symbol "PASSIVE" indicating that the IU isconstrued in passive form - but we transform it mentallyinto active and so analyze e.g. the Actants.

1.8 Textual Grammar

1.8.1 Theory and explanation: first type of critical examination;

search for larger units

70 E. g. By ILLOKUTION only the whole IU can be described.71 Some types of information semantically needed are not represen-

ted in the text. In our example: There is no information aboutPlace (=Topology).

The elaboration of a Makrosatz will be performed by several

preparatory steps. The aim is to define vertically meaning units -

with the same categories as in semantics. The questions are the

following:

- By which explicit mechanisms different IUs are boundtogether? That shows already where several IUs aresubordinated to one other IU.

- Looking at those items semantically defined there asPREDICATE we now ask critically , whether it (relation f +content B) designates truly an observable change in theexternal world (beyond a mere dislocation ofsomething/someone). 72

- Now the predicates (from Semantics) of the superordinated IUs(see step 1) will be taken: if they will be detected as modal(CODES) verb, or als topological information (TOPOLOGIE) thenthe whole complex of dependent IUs equally belongs to thatcategory. So a text will be devided in sometimes largeportions of IUs.

- At this point the analysis of KHS (see 2.1 ) should beavailable. We can import the insights of the structure andthe borders of KHS. There will be overlappings (e. g. speechcontribution speech verb + IUs as direct speech = 2.Aktantof that verb). And there will be corrections: categories asVorfeld/Nachfeld/bridges widen the horizon developed up tonow in the frame of Bottom-up.

1.8.2 Relations between IUs - by explicit semantic mechanisms 73

IUs form a greater unit because there hold explicit semantic

relations between them.

Level of "Pragmatics/textual grammar" - all analyses beeing tagged

with that information.

There are left items from Semantics that haven t yet got a

sufficient explanation:

72 As background two positions can be stated: (a) As "realfact/predicate" only such informations will be accepted that areobservable by other people. And - (b) - the information aboutmere changes in space just alters the local frame of the addres-sees of a communication. That prepares perhaps the informationof a full predicate but it isn t yet itself such a full and cri-tically examined predicate. E. g. "er stieg auf den Mount Eve-rest" is only a topological information, whereas "er stieg aufden Mount Everest und baute dort einen Schneemann" is a fullpredicate.

73 See such terms as "Subjekt-, Objekt-, Attribut-, Relativ-Satz".

ifw = instances of such Meaning Units had been left out andstill miss an explanation. 74

= we stated where in an IU informations of a certain typehave been expected but weren t given. Perhaps IUs in theneighbourhood offer to fill in that gap.

First task of Textual Grammar: Starting from the results of

Semantics to provide an analysis (if possible) for "ifw" and " ".

(1) Die Mannschaft spielte in Japan 75

(2) - sie war erst am 15.12. angekommen. (3) Deshalb(ifw) wirkte sie noch etwas müde. 76 (4) Obwohl(ifw) sie mäßig kickte, 77 (5) gewann sie doch 3:0. 78

The tool of analysis has these tasks:

1. Sequentially the program shows IUs (plain text + semanticanalyses as done up to now) containing "ifw" or " " incontext of IUs in neighbourhood. Users add - if possible -missing analyses:

2. The categories that can be used are the same as in Semantics(level (3) = IUs) but additionally: ADJUNKTION.

3. In cases like "DEIXIS-Topologie-Leerstelle" and/or"DEIXIS-Chronologie-Leerstelle" the program automaticallymakes the proposal to fill in what it has in memory as thelast explicit analysis of the resp. type of information. Theuser has to accept or to reject.

4. In other cases of "ifw" or " " the user has to allocate acertain path [see 2.] to the resp. instance - so combiningthe actual IU with a previous one (perhaps sometimes: afollowing one).

5. Transfer of such insights: "ifw" + [word form(s)] + [Path]to further instances in the text. The user has to accept orto reject. 79

6. Anaphors/Kataphors: if available in the data structure ofMU

1 (see 1.4) pronouns and deictica can be extracted. If not

bound in an Seme-Group (=MU2 ) they point to full

informations outside the actual IU.

74 The reason is that within an IU it is impossible to determineboth anchor points needed for a caracterization by AJDUNKTION orCODES. The semantic restriction blocks to have look on IUs inthe neighbourhood of the actual IU.

75 In (1) chronology is missing. (2) provides this information.76 "Deshalb" = "CODES...kausal" within Semantics ( inside IU (3))

has no target. Now (2) can be determined as Signifikatum .77 "Obwohl" = "Codes...konzessiv" points to (5): Despite the con-

trary knowledge and expectation...78 Both IUs (4)+(5) don t offer informations about Place and Time.

But informations of this type are available - IU (1) and (2).Therefore these gaps are beeing filled in by context.

79 Taking [word form(s)] as search criterion, then looking for ca-racterization "ifw", then offering the [term-path].

(1) Der Student, (2) der gestern abend hier gearbeitet hat,(3) kann sich drüben eine Belohnung abholen.

"der" in (2) functions as relative pronoun and combines IU(2) with (1). At the same time "sich" in (3) points to (1)."Traditionally" speaking informations like "sg|3.p|masc"show the congruence of full noun and pronouns so that therelation fits well. Whereas "hier" (2) and "drüben" (3)presuppose a full information beyond the part of textreproduced here.

With that knowledge an analogous procedure as in 3. can beperformed:

(a) we dispose of the information that a deicticon had gotthe analysis: "Deixis-Topologie..." or"Deixis-Chronologie..." in Semantics.

(b) Now the program can retrace the way to the next fullinformation of the same category and it can ask the userwhether that full information should be added to theactual pronoun as explanation. Equally the [Path] foundthere 80 can be added to the deicticon as pragmaticinterpretation of that originally weak one. 81

7. Obviously users need a grafical representation of the textreflecting the results of Textual Grammar - a type ofgrafics beeing able to integrate further aspects at least ofTextual Grammar (see below).

On the actual level any Makrosatz represents a MEANING UNIT6

1.8.3 Critical examination of "Predicate"/Semantics

1.8.3.1 Type of analysis

Now the fiction is abandoned that every "predicate" - as analyzed in

Semantics - describes a "fact" of the real, external and objective

world. The question is: Which "predicate" points to a change of the

world that can easily be observed by different observers? But, in

fact, we need a change that is more than a mere topological change!

E.g. ich dachte, dass es schön wäre, ...[whole paragraph] .<<DENKEN>> had been analyzed semantically as "predicate". Now wesee, that my <<DENKEN>> can t be observed by others. So <<DENKEN>>means an inner activity, a mental reality and not one of the

80 Which probably is more specific than the [Path] allocated to theDeicticon.

81 We are facing a first example of content-changement ("Verschie-bung"): Looking closer to IU in context we get more detailedinformation than interpreting a single IU only in itself. Suchcontent-changements, even corrections will be typical for prag-matic description.

external world. Therefore <<DENKEN>> loses the qualification of"predicate" and becomes an element of the "Codes = Modalities" - andwith it the whole paragraph depending on <<DENKEN>>.

The program picks up sequentially the meaning units equipped onthe level of Semantics with an analysis of the type "PRÄDIKAT".

The question is: "true predicate" or "dummy predicate" ?

Any decision will be transferred automatically to furtherinstances of the same word form + SEMEME - combination in thetext.

All instances of an IU with "PRÄDIKAT-statisch..."/Semanticswill be transformed automatically to:"ADJUNKTION-Deskription...(same path as inPRÄDIKATION-tree)/Textual Grammar. - The user has not to dealwith all these IUs at the actual step.

history: for any path the user is inclined to choose he/shewill be confronted with a special window showing the analysesalready done. That will improve the consistency of the data.

After finishing the analysis the text will be presented withthree columns:IU (numeration Paths of the respective Paths of real+text) dummy Predicates Predicates

That list may help to structure the proposal for TGEen,EPISODEN, TLEen - see ch. 2.5

1.8.3.2 MU4 - textgrammatical checking: true predicate?4

The program - first step - should enable users to select some parts

of the sequence of words (including related MUs + Rs). MUs of all

different levels/types may be concerned as mentioned up to now.

Second step: to that part of the text a path of terms (basic

categories) will be attributed. So we dispose of three types of

information: (1) part of the text (incl. MUs) (2) term path (3)

level of analysis. We actually speak of: MU4 .4

Meaning Unit4 TG: checking: true predicate?

Meaning Units3 Illocution Unit




1.8.3.3 Program

(1) In the DB the knowledge is stored, which part of an IU had beenanalysed as "PREDICATE" on the level of SEMANTICS. Exactly thatpart of speech now will be reexamined.

(2) Imported data (e.g. from Leipzig) may give helpful indicationsfor these resp. wordforms in terms of their semantic function."wollen" may be called "Modalverb", "sagen" as "Redeverb" etc. -The program should offer such additional knowledge to users.

(3) [Separately: Users may attribute an analysis in our sense andterminology to clusters of wordforms in the DB. E. g. allcompounds with the element "sagen" ("vorhersagen, absagen,weissagen etc.") surely are Non-Predicates on tg level . Such ananalysis, once available, can be imported automatically.Additionally users have to control the specific term path -there can be variations.]

(4) Whether imported or not: users have to analyse the resp. part ofspeech. The result has to be stored (i.e. the allocation of aterm path to the MU attached to a word form, usually consideredas finite verb = semantic predicate ). And if the same part ofspeech reappears later in that text or in another text theprevious analysis will be offered to users with the questionwhether to accept it or not. It will be possible that one partof speech at different instances will attract several types ofanalysis.

(5) "Analysis" means: using the "Path Selector"-Program in respectto MU

4 .

(6) After analysing IU by IU and so collecting many relations: verb MU

4 term path now further insights to text structure will

be exploited:

(7) All IUs being part of a direct speech will be excluded from thesearch of candidates for "true predicates".

(8) All MU4 being element of a RS (relative clause) will be

excluded.

(9) Finally the sequence of IUs of that individual text can be shownwhere just the IUs can be seen that passed these two filters:they offer the path PRAEDIKAT-dynamisch-initiativ even on level"Textgrammatik" and they are not part of a direct speech orrelative clause.

1.8.4

1.8.5 Relations between IUs - based on critical examination of

predicates

After such a critical examination only few real and contested

"PREDICATES" will survive (e.g. <<BAUEN>>). Most other IUs (embedded

in more or less complex unities - see 1.4) are oriented to such a

Predicate and fulfill a certain function (see "Basic categories").

Such a Unit is called "Makrosatz", sometimes it may coincide with

"TGE" ("Textgrammatische Einheit") - see TOP-DOWN-section.

1.8.6 Import of KHS (see 2.1) = MU5 , comparison/correction of the5

divergent insights

The search for dialogues (as done according to 2.1 ) points to parts

of the text where partners are interacting by speech (and

additionally perhaps by some symbolic acts).

But it might be that the actual text contains no dialogue. In that

case the term "dialogue = KHS" doesn t contribute to the hierarchic

segmentation of the whole text. Nevertheless we are presupposing

such a hierarchic structure.

That shows: In the sequence of MUs, the MU5 (=KHS) has no strong

place, doesn t represent a clear and necessary level. But whenever

dialogues occur, they help us to rather quickly find segmentations

on the level Textual Grammar.

1.8.7 Definition of Makrosatz (MU6 )

Inside ch. 1.8 /Textual Grammar can be illustrated as follows.

Finding complexes: one IU heading several others.

Heading IU ---------------Others depending x | | x | e.g. all dependent IUs function | as 2.Aktant for the Heading IU x

Analyzing all predicates of Semantics. Critical allocation to the

correct term-path. (see Appendix 15 )

Question for every Heading IU whether it still can be taken as

"real predicate". The decision is valid for the whole complex of IUs

depending on it.

The text now can be seen as sequence of such entities:Topologie (Heading I

1 + 12 dependent IUs)

Epistemologie (Heading I2 + 3 dependent IUs)

KHS1 /Contribution

1 (Heading


/Contribution2 (Heading


/Nachfeld (Heading5 + 2 dependent IUs)

(real) Predicate (Heading6 + 11 dependent IUs)

...

Any such complex (Heading IU + dependent IUs) is here understood as

Makrosatz = MU6 .6

Meaning Unit6 TG: Makrosatz

Meaning Units4 TG: checking: true predicate?





1.8.8 Definition of TGE = Textgrammatische Einheiten : MU7 7

One MU6 after the other is offered to the user. He/she has to answer

the question whether MUx and MU

x

+

1 share the same time, the same

place and the same constellation of actors.

If yes: The TGEy already running will be continued.

If no: A new TGEy

+

1 is starting.

The TGEen will be characterized quantatively (counting) and

qualitatively (using terms as "Szene, Bericht, Zwischenbericht,

Zusammenfassung")

In a free form users should be able to describe the character of a

TGE depending of its internal structure - as elaborated in 1.8 (and

2.1).

Meaning Unit7 TG: TGE

Meaning Units6 TG: Makrosatz







The program on Textual Grammar has many tasks.

0. Any DB entry that will follow gets the information (flag)that we are working on the level of "Textual Grammar".

1. Are results available from TOP-DOWN (see ch. 2.6.2 - toolfrom Natascha STÄBLER)? If yes: We do already know which

verbs represent true predicates. And additionally: theappropriate term-path had been allocated already. - If no:we proceed by the next point.

2. Starting the analysis on that level the program reuses theanalyses of the level of Semantics: those that got withinthe main category "Predicate" a "statisch...". We transformthese caracterizations of a phrastic IU 82 into a mereADJUNKTION now on the level of Textual Grammar. 83 That meansat the same time: That IU is no more qualified aspredication but only as broader description of a singlenoun. Any IU that underwent such a change should get a flagindicating that modified valuation.

3. Now all other IUs will be critically analysed having beenqualified on the level of Semantics as "phrastic" andcontaining an analysis: Prädikat-dynamisch... - The IU isshown to the user, equally the Prädikat-Path (Semantics) andthe meaning unit attributed to it. The user has to answerthe question: "Do you accept it as true Predicate?"

4. If yes: we add a flag meaning: "TxTGr: true predicate".

5. If no: The user has to allocate an alternative term-PATH.

6. It s no possible to give an overview in three columns: (1)the text, (2) Semantic analyses in the category "Prädikat" -or showing the flag "aphrastic", (3) Changes orconfirmations of that meaning unit on the level of TextualGrammar. 84 Users see synoptically the analysis of literalmeaning and of the critical analysis of the Predicate.

7. Search for needed informations within the context.

8. IUs bound together by conjunctions.

9. Delimitation of "Makrosatz"

10. Delimitation of "TGE"

1.9 Textlinguistics (TL): second type of critical analysis; search

for text units based on the second, hidden meaning

1.9.1 Selection of a sequence of Meaning Units (stylistic features):

MU8 8

82 E. g. "er war ein Schuft" - PRÄDIKAT-statisch-relational-Perti-nenz-Klassifikation.

83 The new data base entry: TxtGr-"Er"(Signifikatum)-"Schuft"(Si-gnifikant)-Adjunktion-Deskription-PRÄDIKAT-statisch-relational-Pertinenz-Klassifikation.

84 E. g. "Er ging nach Jericho" had been analysed on the level ofSemantics as "Prädikat-dynamisch-initiativ". Now, in TextualGrammar, we say: "ging" belongs to "Deixis-Topologie-disloka-tiv..."

We continue to leave the realm of literal meaning and to enter the

field of second, hidden meaning. The first task is the resolution of

parts of the literal meaning that represent pictures, metaphors,

symbols, proverbs or other stylistic features conventionally

expressing indirectly what should be said.

"er hat ein Brett vor dem Kopf"

"Er" = MU1

"hat" = Indicator of R (level: IU)"ein Brett" = MU

1

"vor" = Indicator of R (level: SEMEME-Group)"dem Kopf" = MU

1

The underlined expressions and their related MUs + Rs nowreceive a corrected analysis: instead of saying (semantically)that someone has an object in front of his headtextlinguistically that sequence of MUs will be interpreted asNON-KNOWLEDGE (Code EPISTEMOLOGIE): To "Er"/MU

1 the resp.

termpath will be attributed.

The program - first step - should enable users to select some parts

of the sequence of words (including related MUs + Rs). MUs of all

different levels/types may be concerned as mentioned up to now.

Second step : to that part of the text a path of terms (basic

categories) will be attributed. So we dispose of three types of

information: (1) part of the text (incl. MUs), (2) term path, (3)

level of analysis.

More rigourously tests can be developed pointing to parts of the

text probably offering a stylistic feature. That presupposes the

critical analysis of constitutive meanings already having been done

(see ch. 2.6 ).

E. g. "Der Sieg öffnete nicht den Weg zur Macht"Observations: <<SIEG>> = noun of E3; <<ÖFFNEN>> = predicate ofP2; <<WEG>> = noun of E1; <<MACHT>> = noun of E3. So thepredication oscillates on very different levels of abstraction.That may be taken as indication to a second meaning.

E. g. "Hans strich das Treppenhaus mit roter Farbe an".Observations: <<HANS>> = E1; <<ANSTREICHEN>> = P1; <<TREPPE>,<<HAUS>> + <<FARBE>> = E1; <<rot>> =A1. - A predication workingon homogeneous level. In itself there is no indirect, hiddenmeaning to be seen. 85

Meaning Units8 behave indifferent in respect to the hierarchic

character of the content structure of a text (see Appendix 2/3 ).

85 It might be that within the frame of the whole text that senten-ce performs an indirect meaning (what Hans did could be a demon-strative act, a public sign, a symbolic action).

Their existence and distribution doesn t strictly contribute to the

construction of the whole text. But nevertheless: such items are

precious for the recognition of the authors intentions.

Meaning Unit8 TL: stylistic features

Meaning Units7 TG: TGE







1.9.2 TL: Episode : MU9 9

Formally speaking one EPISODE (MU9 ) consists of one or more TGE

(MU7 ). 86

The criterion to delimit the actual EPISODE and to begin the next

one has to be seen in a significant change in the structure of

isotopies (see ch. 2.4 ).

Meaning Unit9 TL: Episode

Meaning Unit8 TL: stylistic features

Meaning Unit7 TG: TGE

Meaning Unit6 TG: Makrosatz






86 From a viewpoint of discourse analysis it is not adequate tocall one TGE an EPISODE. In a narratological sense one tends touse the term EPISODE only when we have a sequence of TGEen (sce-nes, reports, r esumes, topological/chronological orientations).Keeping this in mind we use the term EPISODE in the frame offormal modelling the text structure.

1.9.3 Textlinguistische Einheit (TLE) = MU1

0

1

0

Formally speaking one TLE (MU1

0 ) consists of several EPISODEN (MU

9 )

or isolated TGE (MU7 ) all using the same isotopies. (see ch. 2.4 ).

One TLE may be interrupted several times. Different TLEen in the

whole text will offer a intertwined structure (see Appendix 1/2 ).

Meaning Unit1

0 TL: TLE

Meaning Units9 TL: Episode

Meaning Units8 TL: stylistic features

Meaning Units7 TG: TGE







Previously some of these segmentation tasks had been mentionedwithin the TOP-DOWN-procedure, see ch. 2.5 . That shows that on thesehigh text levels an integration of the two issues is taking place.

T O P D O W N

2. Pragmatic Analysis

2.1 Text Illocution-Unit

2.1.1 Search for indications of Direct Speech: KHS 87

IUs ending by ":" usually indicate the introduction of a direct

speech ("Redeeinleitung"). Especially when the next IU starts by

quotation mark. - Probably there are more indications of the

beginning of a direct speech.

In the case that a direct speech is running, a final quotation mark

points to the end of that speech contribution.

One speech contribution may be interrupted: "...", fuhr der Bär

fort, "..."

Attention: one dialogue may consist of many such contributions.

So with little efforts it is possible to mark up the text as to

where separate speech contributions are situated. Any further

analysis can respect that segmentation and so won t confuse

informations as elements of a speech act with those of the

narrative/reporting frame. 88

2.1.2 Determining the borders of a KHS 89

87 See program: slang2/topdown/KHSakteur/AEE2.3.zip (Hornung, La-cher, Raff/SS04).

88 That segmentation will be helpful to differentiate the descrip-tion of actors: some appear in the narrative/reporting frame,others play a role only as content of direct speech.

89 KHS = " Kommunikatives Handlungs- Spiel = different speakers areinteracting by speech contributions. These contributions do notonly consist of aspects for the topic that is dealt with. At thesame time the speakers are organizing their behavior in the dia-logue: who wants to start a contribution, to interrupt it, tocome to an end, who wants to be tacit. Such signals may be givenverbally or non verbally.

2.1.2.1 The interchange of speech contributions

Scrolling through the following speech contributions the user

determines the end of the dialogue. The results of 2.1.1 have been

presented to him/her (highlighted).

There may be a dialogue encapsulated in another dialogue!Someone refers a dialogue he/she happened to hear.

KHS1 with several speech contributions includes another KHS

a

with its own speech contributions:

KHS1

KHSa

The program should help to differentiate the different levelsof dialogues.

2.1.2.2 Filling the gaps

Sometimes speech contributions follow immediatly one another. 90

Or it is possible, that there is some narrative interval - short (as

mere introduction to the next contribution) 91 or broader as

description of some circumstances. 92

Having already defined the speech contributions and the borders of

the dialogue we implicitly dispose of the narrative bridges between

the speech contributions. Its only necessary to make these explicit.

2.1.2.3 Running-up ("Vorfeld") and follow-up ("Nachfeld") of a

dialogue

90 "Das glaube ich nicht". "Dann lässt es halt bleiben".91 Darauf sagte X:92 "... Jetzt ist Schluß". Darauf zündete X sich erst umständlich

eine Zigarre an. Nach einigem Nachdenken erwiderte er: " ..."

Presenting to the user the first speech contribution of a KHS within

its context he/she may determine with which previous IU really the

dialogue starts. No hard formalisation can be imagined. The user has

to define the IU opening the dialogue (First IU of the "Vorfeld" =

running-up). E.g. he/she may have the impression that already the

information that a person is entering a room points to the start of

a dialogue - or at least shows the will to start a conversation.

So, what is still missing is the so called "Vorfeld" and the

"Nachfeld". A dialogue doesn t start immediately with the first

speech contribution. And it doesn t end abruptely with the last.

Normally there are narrative introductions resp. endings. So the

user should be able to round up the delimitation of the dialogue=KHS

adding "Vorfeld" and "Nachfeld". A further formalization of that

task is hard to imagine. It must be done "by hand".

So any dialogue consists of (a) narrative background (Vorfeld,

connections between the contributions, Nachfeld) (b) based on that

background the explicit speech contributions take place. (c) There

may occur embedded/cited speech contributions or even dialogues. In

that case: recursive structure.

2.1.2.4 Algorithms

1. Speech contribution1 is taken as starting point ("speech

initiative").

2. Speech contribution2 is shown to the user within its

context. Question to be answered:- is speech contribution

2 a possible reaction/response to

the previous speech contribution1 ?

- If YES: then speech contribution2 will be taken as new

starting point and the question #2 will be asked inrespect to speech contribution

3

- If NO: we have different possibilities- Are we confronted with a cited speech contribution?

- In that case the procedure just mentioned will berepeated: That speech contribution will be taken asstarting point of a KHS etc. But the numerationmust make explicit that we now are working on anembedded level.

- Did we already enter a new dialogue/KHS? - In thatcase after the previous speech contribution aprovisional borderline has to be drawn: End of KHS.And just in front of the latter speech contributiona provisional borderline points to: Start of KHS.

3. We now dispose of the definition of KHSs on their resp.level - but in an often too narrow sense. "Vorfeld" resp.

"Nachfeld" are still missing. Equally the narrative bridgesbetween the individual speech contributions.

4. The enhancement (see #5) of definition of KHS-borders startswith the deepest embedded KHSs, climbing up more and moretill the level of the whole text will be reached.

5. Any speech contribution1 of a KHS is offered (highlighted)

to the user together with text preceding speechcontribution

1 . The user now may define the starting point of

the "Vorfeld" of the KHS. Now we dispose of the realstarting point of the resp. KHS.

6. In the same way the user has to define the "Nachfeld". Nowwe dispose of the real End of KHS.

7. Automatically the gaps between the speech contributions willbe marked.

8. A KHS is represented by the following structureStart of KHSVorfeldSpeech contribution

1 = provisional start of KHS

[narrative bridge1 ]

Speech contribution2

...Speech contribution

n

provisional End of KHSNachfeldEnd of KHS

9. In any speech contribution one or more such structures maybe embedded as cited KHS(s).

2.1.2.5 Dialogue refinements: Search for steerings of speech

contribution ( see Appendix 9 + 11 )

The way partners contribute to a dialogue often can be seen by

explicit cues - whether by words expressed within a direct speech or

by some social behaviour referred to in the "Vorfeld", "bridges" or

"Nachfeld".

So we have to find/to tag elements, parts of the dialogue, that

don t make statements in respect to the topic under discussion, but

two possible directions:

- elements organizing the "change of speakers"(Sprecherwechsel-relevante Steuerungen)

- the user qualifies an answer as: "responsive" or "partlyresponsive" or "non-responsive" (dialog-thematischeSteuerungen)

2.1.2.5.1 Tagging both types of steerings

One by one all parts of a dialogue are presented to the user who has

to test in each case whether that part of dialogue contains

steerings as described. If yes, the relevant word sequence will be

chosen and the appropriate tagging will be attributed to that word

sequence.

As help function an additional window informs about previous

analyses of the resp. type (comparable to Appendix 11 ).

The sequence of parts of dialogue may look like that:

KHS1 :Vorfeld

KHS1 : Contribution1

KHS1 : Bridge

KHS1 : Contribution2

KHS1 : KHS

a : Vorfeld

KHS1 : KHS

a : Contribution1

KHS1 : KHS

a : Nachfeld

KHS1 : Contribution

2

KHS1 : Nachfeld

To each of such Parts of dialogue the following two sets of terms

(in abbreviation) will be offered. The user has to select a chain of

words and to attribute one item from every set to it.

Speaker change:AI = a partner of dialogue wants to start his contributionWI = the speaker actually speaking wants to continueEI = the actual speakers indicates the end of his contributionNI = a partner has not the interest to start a speech

contributionAII = the speaker encourages the partner to start his

contributionWII = the speaker encourages the partner to continue his speechEII = the speaker wants to stop the speech of the partnerNII = the speaker doesn t want the partner to begin with his

contribution

Dialog-thematisch:

responsiv = the answer fits very well to the question

teil-responsiv = the answer fits partly to the question

non-responsiv = the answer doen t fit to the answer (cf. thecommunicative behaviour of politicians ininterviews...)

2.1.2.5.2 Synopsis of the results

We now dispose of two types of results. Communicative behaviour (a)

in direct speech; (b) by gestures, actions, without words.

And these actions are connected to the involvement of single

speakers in the dialogue. So we will use these informations too in

the next step: characterization of Actors. How is their

communicative behaviour?

But first we need a conclusive presentation of the results of our

description of the dialogue. (...)

2.1.2.6 FACE - preserving or threatening acts

Within the frame of a dialogue it can be observed whether the

partners do protect and preserve the face (selfconciousness,

self-esteem) of the resp. partner or whether - by explicit words or

by accompanying actions - they threaten or try to destroy it.

Of which kind the face of every partner in dialogue is sometimes can

be observed by some speech contribution and/or certain nonverbal

acts. It is possible to differentiate between a positive face and a

negative face . 93

So we should be able to attribute to individual acts or speech

contributions within a dialogue one of the following tags:

<fpa> = face preserving act

<fta> = face threatening act

And closing the description of an individual KHS users should be

invited to describe the behavior of the partners: How do the

partners interact (see Steerings 2.1.2.5 )? And how do they treat

mutually their faces ? Which kind of face has to be assumed?

93 "Positive" means that someone sees his self-esteem fulfilled inintense social contacts, in finding harmony with others, in ma-nifold conversations. - "Negative" is equivalent with drawingborders, individualisation, selfreflection in contrast to trendsin groups, family etc. It is said that Arab culture mostly ori-ented to "positive face" whereas middle-European tends to "nega-tive face". Of course if members of different cultures meet mi-sunderstandings and conflicts may be the result.

2.1.3 Renominalisation 94

Sequentially the nouns of the text will be taken. 95 In respect to

every noun the user will be asked whether that noun points to any

noun previously mentioned.

E. g. in a text may occur a person sometimes referred to byproper name ("David"), sometimes by his role ("König"),sometimes by valuations ("Schuft"), sometimes by terms ofkinship ("Bruder") etc. These different nouns normally occurseveral times and it might be that the text offers aninteresting distribution of them. E. g. "König" at thebeginning, "Schuft" at the end. By establishing relations

between different nouns pointing to the same actor in the text

("actor" is not equivalent to "person"; even an animal or a mythic

tree or something else can play that role) we are creating chains of

equivalence .

So perhaps in a narrative 5 different "persons" are interacting ( 5

chains), for these 5 persons 27 different nouns are in use. And we

can count how many times each noun is occuring, how often shifts

within a chain can be seen, whether there is a development within a

chain or whether all nouns of the resp. chain along the whole

distance of the chain.

Finally a synopsis of the distribution of all chains can be offered

to the interpreter - using all typical insights of distribution

analysis. 96 So the question can be answered, whether some data in

one chain may be caused by changes in other chains.

2.2 ACTORS of the text

2.2.1 Determining the ACTORS mentioned explicitly in the text

One actor of the text may be referred to by very different word

forms, mainly those semantically/pragmatically identified as noun.

94 See: http://www-ct.informatik-uni-tuebingen.de/daten/jgbn.pdfchapter 3.

95 Either by using the data structure of meaning units of the bot-tom-up-group or by assumptions valid for a specific language: e.g. capitalization of nouns in German (but function words at thebeginning of a clause have to been excluded).

96 See B ADER "Interne Syntax: Der Befund an identischen Wortformen"in: H. Schweizer (ed.), Computerunterstützte Textinterpretation.THLI 7/i. Tübingen 1995. S. 17-41.

Any noun analyzed as Actant ("Eduard") or as Deixis (e. g.within prepositional phrases: "zum Bahnhof" = topology; "imMai" = chronology) can be taken as potential ACTOR. The resultmay sound rather strange in many cases. But two points shouldbe kept in mind:

1. The preferences and prejudices of the scholar should beexcluded.

2. Any result concerning actors depends on the text genre.Whereas in "Harry Potter" a willow is fighting in othertext types it does not.

So there is no equation: Actor = human. According to thespecific text fiction it may occur that birds are decisiveactors, or trees or even a cupboard.

So the first task is to extrapolate from the text all nouns in

actant- or Deixis-Position. 97

To do this, the Bottom-up-Method has to offer just the analyses that

now should be exploited. If that step has not yet been done the

actual analysis of Actors has to be blocked.

We now dispose of a huge amount of (possible) Actors. One and the

same Actor may be mentioned by different word forms.

Step 2: Pronouns are the most common means (Personal Pronoun "er";

Possessive Pronoun "sein"; Demonstrative Pronoun "dieser, jener").

Resolution of Ana-/Kataphora is the key word now. It is usefulto respect the conventions of the individual language - withoutsearching for universal and theoretically convincing answers."Mann, Besenstiel, Kaugummi" in German have the "masculinegender". Pronouns like "ihm, dem, diesem, jenem" may refer tothat group of nouns, whereas linkings with "Rose, Sonne, Frau,Mülltonne" are excluded. But the use of "Gender" is ratherrestricted because there are several overlappings: "der Mann,der Rose (genitive); die Frau, die Drucker". In other languagesthe Gender -argument is of very restricted usefulness.

Wherever in Semantics the traditional aspects as "gender, numerus,

determination" had been exploited they ll now be reused to resolve

the pronouns of the text.

That increases the amount of possible Actors.

1: "Eduard ging die Treppe runter,2: und machte seiner Frau eine Szene.3: Sie brach darauf zusammen."

97 And to neglect all nouns occuring in an Adjunction "er baute denPalast des Königs or in a Codes-element ("er rauchte wie einSchlot = Code EPISTEMOLOGY).

In Semantics the first actant of IU 2 had been made explicit("er"). Now we know that "er" is not referring to "Treppe" butto "Eduard", the only possible link. On the other side (allthree are feminine) it is not clear who/what did"zusammenbrechen": "Treppe, Frau, Szene". Obviously we need theintervention of the user in such cases.

Up to now within "Step 2" we exploited the traditional categories as

offered by dictionaries: a noun ("Mond": masculine, singular,

definite (by itself as unicum ) or word group ("the moons [of

Jupiter]": neutre, plural, definite [by article]). - But meanwhile

the Bottom-up-Group should have executed an analysis using our

integrated terminology: the aspects of DETERMINATION and NUMERUS are

interwoven. The GENDER-aspect is restricted to clear cases and

neglected in all others.

Step 3: The change between proper name ("Fritz"), mentioning of his

profession ("der Friseur"), description of his outfit ("der hagere,

gut angezogene Mittvierziger").

We now have to introduce for an Actant (cf. Semantics) the same

abbreviation (e.g. "An ") when it reappears in another word form.

Additionally: Even what has been qualified as topology or chronology

on the level of Semantics will be integrated into that reuse of

results of the bottom-up analysis. 98

Actually we are looking for different expressions/descriptions that

all are meant to have the same extension, i. e. they all are

pointing to the same person of the text.

The meaning and information value of these expressions/descriptions

may be very different. Comparing them it can be said that they have

different intensions

In German the actual mechanism sometimes is called

"Renominalisierung", i. e. one and the same entity=actor is referred

to by different full nouns . These all have the same extension but

contribute different intensions to the description/modelling of that

specific actor.

98 In the case of "Fritz schickt das Paket an Herbert" Herbertwill be qualified not as "3. Aktant/Adressat" but only topologi-cally as target of a sending process. For it is not expressedexplicitly Herbert to be the receiver of a gift.

The data structure of one Actor in a Text looks like that:

Actor1

nouna noun

b noun

c

Pronounsa Pronouns

b Pronouns

c

renominalisationsa renominalisations

b renominal.

c

ADJUNCTIONSa ADJUNCTIONS

b ADJUNCTIONS

c

The program should provide the user all descriptions (attributes,

ADJUNCTION predicates, actant-qualifications) related to that

individual person (= "An "). So the user will be able to see, how

this actor is modelled by the actual text. 99

To exploit all these relevant informations data mining shouldsearch for all

- ADJUNCTIONS on the level of Semantics

- IUs qualified as ADJUNCTION on the level of Textual

Thus we get a full description of the resp. Actor.

With all these informations a statistical summing up may help to

depict the respective Actor.

Based on the data of the bottom-up-analysis the result may looklike this:

Actorx occurs

- 15 in the role of 1.Actant/Semantics- 2 in the role of 1.Actant/Textual Grammar- 0 in the role of 2.Actant/Semantics- 8 in the role of 3.Actant/Adressat/Semantics

99 E.g. the text mentions a person named "David". It is not impor-tant what I m knowing about "David" (already before I read thatspecific text). It is the task of research to learn how thatspecific text models its person "David". - Whereas - perhaps - Iused to think of "David" as a famous king, the actual text maydepict him as thief, gangster etc.

Such statistics show how the resp. Actor is involved in the plot of

the text. Is he/she a leading person? Is he/she a suffering person?

Is the role he/she plays of lower importance? etc.

2.2.1.1 Step 1: Nouns, but no pronouns

A word form ("Fritz") analyzed as "Aktant" or "Adjunktion" or

"Deixis (Topology or Chronology)" on the level of Semantics is given

a certain label (e.g. "Actor1 "). Any other word form (=noun)

referring to the same person/entity (e.g. "Friseur") is given the

same label. Automatically that procedure will be repeated at all

instances of the resp. word form in the text. So the label "Actor1 "

contains all semantic analyzes (of bottom-up procedure) related to

different word forms.

It is now possible to process that amount of informations

statistically - as mentioned below.

2.2.1.2 Step 2: resolution of pronouns

... should be done within a KHS. So the results of ch. 2.1.2 must be

presupposed. Within one dialogue or subordinated dialogue we proceed

from one speach contribution to the next.

All kinds of "1. person" - as personal ("ich"), possessive("mein") pronoun - point to the actual "SP" = "speaker". So wecan add the full designation for that person, e.g. "Actor

1 ".

All kinds of "2. person" - as personal ("du"), possessive("dein") pronoun - point to the actual "KP" = "communicationpartner". So we can add the full designation for that person,e.g. "Actor

2 ".

Taking the next speech contribution the attribution of Actor-labels

is reverse. - Obviously that can be done automatically in the

interaction of two speech partners. 3 or more speakers within the

same dialogue need an attribution of Actor-labels "by hand".

Up to now there are pronouns that haven t yet got Actor-labels: That

are pronouns of the "3. person" ("er", "sein") representing the "KT"

= "communication theme/subject".

So we need a list of pronouns in the background, where the

singular/plural forms as well as the "masculine/feminine/neutre"

forms are related to our designations: "SP|KP|KT". And after the

analysis of "SP|KP" pronouns in a text we see, which "KT" pronouns

are still missing a Actor-label. 100

Not as an universal applicable definition but only as an insight

valid for the resp. individual language one can make use of the

reference system erroneously called "gender". In most cases these

descriptions have nothing to do with "natural gender". But

nevertheless: these conventions and arbitrary structures give

indications which relations between noun and pronoun are possible

(e.g. "Kind" "es") and which other relations are forbidden (e.g.

"Kind" "er").

Therefore in semantically defining the meaning of nouns the

bottom-up-group should add even that type of differences valid and

also powerful in the individual language (but one should avoid to

call it "gender").

Given such a tagging these informations ("gender") may serve as a

kind of control to avoid the establishment of false relations ("noun

- pronoun").

Keep in mind that in the context of ch. 2.4(Isotopies/Thema-Rhema) already a modul for Pronounresolution had been developed (Seminar SS 2005).

100 Reminder: Since the definition of "meaning units" - see ch.1.2/Bottom-up-strategy - we dispose of the information, to whichgender (in traditional or in critical perspective) the singleconstitutive meaning belongs. See Appendix 10 .

2.2.1.3 Side effect: pronouns coherence of the text

With resolution of pronouns at hand it is possible to match the

coherence of the text in a strong sense. The insights are more

specified than those in the frame of KHS. 101 The interaction noun

pronoun graphically can be represented as:

noun1 noun

2 noun

3 IU 1

||| || x| IU 2x|| x| | IU 3

x| | x IU 4| x IU 5x IU 6

For the interpretation of such a structure we have to follow these

axioms:

1. Wherever such a vertical connection (ore more) between apronoun (x) and its full noun is found no beginning of a newparagraph can be assumed.

2. Each line in the above graph corresponds to a separate IU.So the up to now hidden knowledge of IU-segmentation (in thetop-down-procedure) is used explicitly.

3. Each deictic element (= pronoun) points to its next fullmentioned noun in its neighbourhood. So it might be that wehave "er" in IU 12, and "Hans" in IU 9 and in IU 4. So thepronoun has as target "Hans" in IU 9 and not in IU 4. Thesame with Kataphors.

2.2.2 Determining the ACTORS presupposed by the text

Every text had been composed by a historical author . In literary

analysis we are interested in him in so far as the author left

literary traces. So actually we do not occupy with the author .

Literarily the author shows his presence as narrator/poet/reporter

i. e. as producer of a certain type of discourse. That instance

articulates one kind of observing the subject, the text is dealing

with.

The text producer may apply different view points :

1. Reporting events with an inner distance, in a quaseobjective manner, represents an external view-point .

101 Therefore no conflict should be expected - rather a more detai-led description of a KHS on one side and of pure narrative textsegments (with no KHS) on the other.

2. The text producer may signal empathy with one of the actorsof the text: he adopts the reflexions of that actor ( innererMonolog ). 102

3. Indirect speech - it is the text producer who reports whatan actor could have been said. 103

4. Without alluding to a speech act the text producer quits hisdistance and reports a meaning/reflection of one of theactors (" erlebte Rede "). 104

In literary analysis we do not search for the historical author -that will be the subject of research after literary analysis of thespecific text.

But we are searching for literary traces of different type:

- where the speech sounds objective the background actor textproducer can be heard

- where direct speech is reported, one of the explicit actorscan be heard, so pushing into the background the voice of thetext producer (who - of course - continues to play the roleof an omnipresent person)

- where indirect speech is reported, the text producer remainsaudible as explicit reporter of the speech act of ohne of theexplicit actors.

- where erlebte Rede is used, the text producer joins thefeelings and reflections of an actor without using stylisticsof speech.

Our program uses

- definition of explicit actors for that individual text

- enables scholars to mark up parts of the text (in- or outsideof speech contributions) and to tag them

= indirect speech

= erlebte Rede

= the definition of direct speech and by taking theopposite parts of the text had already been done

2.2.3 ACTORS + Speech contributions within a KHS

We now have at our disposal different informations:

- where in the text a dialogue(=KHS) is running?

102 Monologue (normally without quotations marks): "Sie ist schön,dachte Deborah, so schön bin ich auch einmal gewesen."(JOSEPHROTH, Hiob).

103 "Sie glaubte, alle müssten es hören". (ebd).104 "Den ganzen Tag suchte man sie zu Hause. Mochte man sie suchen! "

(ebd).

- which are the single contributions to that dialogue?

- who are the actors of the text?

- where occurs a delicate interplay between an actor and the

text producer ( indirect speech or erlebte Rede )?

With these informations it is possible to determine -

computer-assisted (or automatically?) - which actor is directing his

speech contribution to which other person of the text?

When the next speech contribution within the same KHS starts: Does a

simple change of roles happen (previous speaker hearer; previous

hearer speaker)? Or does a third person mix in?

2.2.3.1 Tagging the speech contributions: two speaking strategies 105

A speaker can steer explicitly the process of the dialogue. He

doesn t only say what belongs to the subject. But at the same time

he/she defines the own role within the dialogue and the own type of

participation:

(1) Speaker change. There may be mentioned gestures in the narrative

parts or there may be explicit verbal indications in a speech

contribution - all these informing the partner about the own

behavior: See Appendix 9 esp. A|W|E|N + I|II tags, e.g. AI = EII

(2) Responsivity | thematic fitting: Given a question in a speech

contribution one may ask whether the following speech

contribution gives a totally sufficient answer ( RESPONSIV), or

does the answer only partly fit to the question

( TEIL - RESPONSIV), or does the answer deal with subjects that

were not the topic of the answer ( NON- RESPONSIVE)?

2.2.3.2 See Appendix 17 . - By the actual method we relate literary

analysis and psychology. In that discipline already several

procedures of analysis are in use.

2.3 Determining the structure of TEXT ACTANTS (Roles)

105 See Appendix 9 .

Actors (see 2.2) of the whole text are not an unstructured assembly.

Rather there is a structure grouping the relationship of these

actors in a specific way. So we are looking from a higher level to

the results just obtained: abstraction of the individual actors of

the text.

ZIMA, Was ist Theorie? Tübingen 2004: "Hier wird deutlich, wienützlich Tesni eres und Greimas Begriff des Aktanten ist: erermöglicht eine Diskurstypologie auf aktantieller Ebene.Diskurse erscheinen nun als semiotische Schemata, die sozialeProzesse mit Hilfe von individuellen, infraindividuellen,supraindividuellen (kollektiven), abstrakten und mythischenAktanten konstruieren, d.h. erzählen. Sowohl impsychoanalytischen als auch im systemtheoretischen Bereichbesteht die Gefahr, daß infraindividuelle ( Ich, Es, Überich )oder abstrakte Aktanten ( Systeme ) zu mythischen Instanzenwerden, deren Absichten und Handlungen - d.h. narrativeProgramme im Sinne von Greimas - nicht empirisch nachweisbarsind."

We learned that already from fairy tales: there are antagonistic

groups. Each group has its "hero", each "hero" has "helpers" or

"opponents". The question is who of the "heros" will win the great

"battle"/"test", "hero1 " or "hero

2 " - each one with his helpers.

The program should recall the user the relations between actors to

form the groups. Where such a grouping can t be based upon explicit

information by the text, it should be done by the user "by hand" -

on the basis of his/her understanding of the text.

2.4 ISOTOPIES THEMA/RHEMA-Structure

See Appendix 12

Every meaning unit or several of them (if in sequential order) have

to be classified as belonging to an abstract homogene semantic

field. E.g. |VERWANDTSCHAFT| - so individual meanings and totally

different word forms in the text such as " Bruder, heiraten, Eltern,

Familienfest, Erbe ... may be attributed to that semantic field =

ISOTOPY.106

106 In other words: "In einem sprachlichen Text werden von jedemSemem aus semantische Paradigmata konnotiert, d.h. es werdenKlasseme projiziert. Diese Klasseme haben jedoch keineswegs alledie gleiche Bedeutung. Manche tauchen nur einmal auf und werdenbald vergessen. Demgegenüber sind andere rekurrent. Die rekur-renten Klasseme bzw. Konnotate spielen in der semantischen Text-

Once a isotopy had been determined users should try to find outwhether a binary counter-isotopy can be found in the text. 107

So perhaps always/often the amount of isotopies relevant forone particular text may be represented by tree structure. Thiswould point to the thematic coherence of the text. Or by suchtree structure can be called to mind which aspects arelogically related to the isotopies of the text but had not beintegrated. In such a case we are transcending the descriptionof the literary text structure and are entering the field of"implications". 108

Once such an attribution is done - automatically all other instances

of that meaning resp. word form will be analyzed in the same way.

The root terms of the "Basic categories" equally represent thematic

fields. E. g. |TOPOLOGY| in most texts plays a major part.

Once the semantic analysis of the single words is done and can be

found in the resp. memos (see beyond 1.1.4 ), then too the different

relations/definitions resulting from WordNet can be exploited. So

the counterterm of an individual meaning can be found, or a

part-of-name, of a general term etc. These sememes too belong to the

actual isotopy.

After the allocation of every meaning (<<K:...>>) to an isotopy the

program should retrace from the beginning the development/the use of

isotopies throughout the whole text graphically - see Appendix 8 .

Whereas the representation of isotopies renders a static impression

of the distribution of the thematic fields in the text, the same

konstitution eine wichtige Rolle." J. LINK, Literaturwissen-schaftliche Grundbegriffe. Eine programmierte Einführung aufstrukturalistischer Basis. UTB 305. München 1974. S. 71. -"Klassem" is a type of meaning that corresponds to a meaning inthe same text belonging to the same class. "Klassem" = isotopy.E. g. Words/meanings like: "Verfahren, Beanstandung, Wahlord-nung, Gruppe, Funktionsfähigkeit, Verfassung" can be subsumedunder the class = isotopy: "Parlamentarismus".

107 Often isotopies are introduced as binary oppositions. E. g. in atext "Freiheit - freier Raum - Befreiung" are mentioned, andequally: "Gefangenschaft - Gefängnis". In another text: "Geist -Literatur - Goethe", but equally "Materie - Arbeit - Schmutz".In each case the isotopies can be understood as terms related bybinary structure.

108 E. g. a hymnic text praising the great feats of emperor Napoleonprobably will not mention the cruelties and victims of his wars.So in such a text only the positive half of isotopies will bepresent. But the logic structure of the isotopy tree structurebrings to daylight the negative aspects of his reign.

data in combination with further data sources can be used to draw

the development of Thema - Rhema throughout the text. The standard

question is: Which information (=instance of an isotopy) at a

certain point of the text is given/known? And which one in an

Illocution Unit is new or failed to be mentioned since longer time?

A special problem has to be seen in the very beginning of atext - and sometimes at the beginning of a paragraph. At thebeginning users of course dispose of no information. Soconcerning the first IU it makes no sense to ask: what isknown/what is new? Instead: the whole IU will be taken as:"THEMASETZUNG" ("thema setting").

The same may occur in the running text: After a certain subjecthad been treated the speaker wants to chose a different subject(=thema). The change can be marked abruptly: it has been spokenbroadly of Christmas, the speaker introduces: "Bezüglich desWinterschlussverkaufs" ... That is equally a new "THEMASETZUNG"("thema setting"), a new thematic starting point within thetext. It may occur a/phrastically.

Both parts of the program (Isotopy + Thema/Rhema) start by using the

raw text and the segmentation into Illocution units . Internally and

at a second stage the affected word forms should be correlated with

the "meaning units" defined by the bottom-up-procedure. So - third -

it will be possible to integrate too the semantic/pragmatic

descriptions (term paths).

Isotopies:

The program first should provide the possibility tocreate/define new Isotopies and to attribute them to parts ofthe text. User have to read the whole text (or larger parts ofit) to get an impression which isotopies are involved. Herebyusers don t need the segmentation of the text into IUs (but theprogram has to keep that information, see below).

Second: We start by an intuitive procedure: /Gras/, /Mücke/,/Baum/ - the meaning of such word forms will be allocated to anisotopy, e.g. /FAUNA/ or /FLORA/. - As soon as the correlationof word forms and meaning units is done (see above), it will bepossible to use the definitions integrated in the meaningunits. Additionally such structures as in GermaNet (antonym,hyponym, meronym...) should be exploited: such proposals may betaken as search criterion to find automatically furtherinstances of the same isotopy in the actual text.

Third: the administration of the isotopies should be supported:Often (always?) the isotopies of a text can be presented astree structure. So we need a tool for building a tree structureof the isotopies represented in the text or being impliedlogically.

Complementary to that representation on an abstract level weneed a presentation of the results in the actual text: now theIUs will be reactivated to present the distribution ofisotopies as an interaction of columns (see Appendix 8 ).

Forth: Apart of the "intuitive" analysis of the raw text theprogram should be prepared to exploit further aspects aprevious analyses, already stored in the Data Base (e.g.Definition of Topological informations or Modalities/Codesetc.). In such a case "roots" or at least nods on a high levelwill be chosen by users (as "isotopy"): the data base shouldfill in all more specific terms dependent on that start nod.The paths/terms as such are not needed, but only the fact thatthere is an instance. So the entries of the data base areexploited quantitatively.

Thema - Rhema: 109 .

Fifth: For retracing the thematic structure the knowledge ofpronouns is needed: a pronoun represents a full informationgiven previously and so it can t be rhema = a new information.In itself it represents a thema already introduced. 110 We reuselists/informations already available in the Top-Down-procedure,see ch. 2.2.12 . 111

The program filters what is offered to users: proceeding IU byIU the program excludes all pronouns forming the kernel of ameaning unit. Automatically these are taken as Thema. Threetypes of pronouns can be expected - each one has to be taggedrespectively:(i) An anaphoric pronoun pointing back in the text to its

anchor noun . A "A" will be added to that pronoun.(ii) A kataphoric pronoun pointing ahead whose anchor noun

still waits to be mentioned. A "K" will be added to thatpronoun.

(iii) An empty pronoun that seems to have no anchor nounwithin the text. A "E" will be added to that pronoun.

Users won t be confronted with word forms alone, but with wordforms within the resp. meaning unit (level of IU/Semantics). -Finally: wherever the search for isotopies had stated a changeof isotopies we use that information: it is possible that now anew rhema is going to be introduced. Or that change mayindicate that an isotopy already known in the text (from aprevious section) is being reactivated. In such a case a themawill be continued.

Sixth: Surely using data of isotopies for the presentation ofthema/rhema-structure only will be possible semi-automatically:Solutions are offered to the user who has toconfirm/alter/reject them.

Seventh: The construction of thema/rhema-structure shouldproceed IU by IU and represent the result grafically.

109 See Appendix 16110 Rather seldom that assumption proves to be wrong, e.g. in the

case of a pronoun at the very beginning of a story (for the sakeof excitement): "Er hatte den Mut verloren..."

111 While that part of the program doesn t yet exist we have to si-mulate such lists.

Eigth: There are 5 types of thema-rhema-structures. Anindividual text always will offer a mixture of these types.

Nineth: There are further papers to illustrate the subjects:isotopy (Zitate 26); thema/rhema (Zitate 38.39) [ask me]

Tenth: A major challenge is to be seen in the convenientgraphical representation of Thema-Rhema-Structure of a text.

2.5 Segmentation into TGE, EPISODE, TLE

The knowledge of KHS and Isotopies should be combined. By these

criteria the possibilities for segmentation of the text are rather

restricted or - to say it positively - at some points of the text

the user is heavily forced to insert a borderline into the text.

2.5.1 Segmentation into TGE

see above ch. 1.8.9

2.5.2 Segmentation into EPISODE

see above ch. 1.9.2

2.5.3 Segmentation into TLE

see above ch. 1.9.3

2.6 Critical examination of <<K:-meanings

What follows we used to analyze on different methodological levels.

The reasons have been of theoretical and didactic kind. But now

using the computer we may conceive of just one procedure. If

afterwards the results should be differentiated analogously that may

be done by a deliberate search strategy. The presentation of the

question/the problem in an ordered way here is due to didactical and

historical reasons only.

2.6.1 Analysis of nouns (TL: Pragmatische Wortarten)

Substantives, nouns semantically seem to correspond to real things,

stable and clearcut entities of the external world. That may hold in

the case of "tree, table, river". But that still rather na ıve

impression has to be tested, because there are other nouns - as

"hope, credit, the walk, musician etc." - that aren t things.

Perhaps someone points by such words to real things, entities,

persons. But he/she does not name them as thing/entity/person but by

an inner state, topological activity, profession etc.

Pamela kommt aus der Schule und berichtet. "Stell dir vor",sagt sie zu ihrer Mutter, "wir haben heute alles über dieEntfernung des Mondes gelernt." - "Tatsächlich", meint dieMutter zerstreut. "Wie entfernt man ihn denn?" 112

So the analysis of the meaning of nouns now gets a twofold critical

examination:

(1) Every noun is described by a particular path from the"Basiskategorien", either called "LEXPRAG" or "PragmatischeWortarten" (both terms occur in this paper). - But: not thewhole range of term paths will be in use. The type"AJUNKTION" is excluded: Users should nt have thepossibility to choose that category.

(2) Every noun is characterized according to the level ofabstraction it belongs to: E1 entity of first order(nouns designing real things, entites of the externalworld: "tree, car, house, woman"); E2 entity of secondorder (nouns designing states, activities or processes:"das Gehen, Fließen, Sprechen"); E3 entity of third order( eternal truths, inner, modal , or logic states: "hope,truth, love, form, equation, god, psyche").

See Appendix 13 ; S CHWEIZER, H (ed.), ComputerunterstützteTextinterpretation... Tübingen 1995. Bd.ii, 178ff; iii, 92ff. -SCHWEIZER, H, Metaphorische Grammatik, 224ff.

2.6.2 Analysis of verbs (TG: verb = activity transforming the

external world?)

See Appendix 15 - Within Textual Grammar we used to put the

question: Is it true that the unit occuring in Semantics as

conjugated verb informs us about an activity transforming some part

of the external world? (see 1.8.2 ) - For, normally one operates with

the equation: verb = predicate = activity (Handlungsverb). That

naıve equation now will be tested. Background is the axiom that the

term "predicate" should be restricted to informations appealing to

"world transformations by will" = activities. Whereas pure states

("der Berg ist hoch") or processes ("der Rhein fließt ins Meer")

112 In our issue we ll have to take into account that Entfernungfirst is an highly abstract meaning (E3 - equivalent to distan-ce ); in the perspective of the mother Entfernung is of type E2(= removal as activity). - Such an insights prevents from trans-ferring blindly an analysis to all other instances of the sameword form.

find their appropriate place in other domains of our "basic

categories". Static predicates on the level of Semantics now prove

to be nothing else than Adjunctions ("Berg" has the attribute

"hoch"); in the cited "Rhein"-example: we are informed about change

in the topological frame (therefore: TOPOLOGY...- DISLOKATIV ...). But

that s not yet the level of world transformation as is requested in

the case of "activity".

Two scenarios may occur: (1) Within the top-down -analysis I nowwant to do the "analysis of verbs ". But perhaps someoneworking within the bottom-up strategy already allocated termpaths to the verbs on level Textual Grammar (see 1.8.2 ). So theprogram should inform the user whether these informationsalready are available. (2) If term paths are not yet availablenow users have to allocate them to the conjugated verbs.

But beware of a certain naivety: Users on top down way may beinclined to analyse any conjugated form of <<SEIN>>: "ist,sind, bin, waren ...". Keep in mind that auxiliary verbs mustbe regarded together with their resp. nominal information:"ist...rot; sind in USA; bin hungrig; waren Schüler". 113

Even here the question of abstraction is relevant. "er schnitzte" is

much more concrete and specific than: "er handelte". The meaning of

both verbs refers to a transformation of the external world, indeed.

But <<HANDELN>> in relation to <<SCHNITZEN>> is a hyperonym (cf. ch.

0.5 ). A tripartite range of steps of abstraction equally should be

offered. But the definitions behind the terms are somewhat

different:

P1 predicate designing an activity in the external world,pointing to a well imaginable transformation;

P2 predicate comprising a lot of different predicates oflevel P1, e.g. <<HANDELN>>;

P3 predicates that are not accepted as description ofexternal transformations, e.g. informations readjusting thetopological knowledge of readers (<<GEHEN>>) 114 or predicatesbelonging to modalities <<LOBEN>>. 115

113 Exception: existential statements ("Gott ist; das Einhorn gibts;there is a nightmare; il y a un roi de la France"). - Includingsuch a "Prädikatsnomen" means that in several cases we will doan analysis that will be comparable to that concerning the ad-jectives (see 2.6.3 ) - despite the fact that level of interpre-tation and header of term paths looks differently. To unify suchallied analyses stored at different places will be the task ofthe final data mining (see 1.3.4 ).

114 Not a transformation of the external world is referred to butjust a displacement in it.

115 In this respect P3 is comparable to E3.

2.6.3 Analysis of adjectives

Even here we need a path of terms and the definition of abstraction

degree.

There is an overlap between what is actually required and ch. 1.6 in

bottom up analysis. There is even a special segment in the framework

of terms devoted to our actual question: On semantic level we define

adjectives (and some more items) if they fulfill the function as

adjunct : "der starke Kran" - the adjective describes the noun.

Therefore in bottom up analysis we choose a path beginning with

"Adjunktion- ...". If such an analysis can be reused, we directly

pass to the definition of abstraction level. If not, we first have

to find the correct path on semantic level.

In the case of "die schnell kombinierende Mannschaft" it is possible

to develop an imaginative concept of what happens and how the team

is interacting. Saying "die exzellente Mannschaft" the speakers

formulates a positive valuation but the hearer isn t able to guess

why the speaker was inclined to express that valuation. Insofar the

valuation has an abstract character and should be distinguished from

a more concrete description.

The question in the moment is, whether we can introduce the same

tri partite level of abstraction degrees as in the previous cases. I

propose to do this despite the fact that the second level has not

yet got a sufficient definition.

In the case of adjectives we will work with the following threecategories: A1 = attributes of pittoresque, imaginable content("schnell, grün, rau, geriffelt, glatt, weich" etc.).

One could design A2 as attributes, derived from verbs pointingto real actions (transformations of the external world) andtopological informations (e.g. "ansteigend, fallend,krachend..." etc.).

To category A3 belong all attributes depending on modal fields= Codes : "wissend, phantasievoll, willentlich, erlaubt, gut,beginnend, heftig" etc.

2.6.4 Program

The program consists of the following elements:

Depending on the status of the others steps of analysis thefirst question is whether the definition of "constitutivemeaning" (DB) can be presupposed and used. If not: We have towork on the basis of the raw text and so first to define verbsand nouns and adjectives . In that case in the following list" noun, verb,adjective " should replace terms like "constitutivemeaning" or "<<K: >>-meaning".

- from Bottom-up-Group the information about constitutivemeaning is taken over

- therein - in the best case - definition of the resp.individual meaning is available: Wordform /bank/ at thatindividual place in the text has got the meaning<<GELDINSTITUT>>.

- from Top-Down-Group the information about isotopy is takenover, to which that specific [word form + meaning unit] atthat place in the text belongs. 116

- any <<K: >>-meaning will be offered to the user who has toassign the correct term path

- any analysis will be transferred semi-automatically to theother instances of the same meaning unit in that specifictext

- any analysis will be stored in a library that can be usedanalysing further texts

- handling the term paths the modul of E ILBRACHT may be reused

- only correct paths on the correct level of analysis will beallowed by the program

- establishing the liberary just mentioned we still have tomake more clear the criteria 117

- The analysis having been done a grafical survey (still waitsto be specified) helps to detect the structure of thatspecific text.

116 Such a knowledge doesn t replace the LEXPRAG-definition. But ithelps to decide whether further instances of the same word formin the text can receive the same term path + definition of ab-straction degree. Certainly several instances can be excludedfrom the start.

117 That depends on the data structure actually under development.

I n t e g r a t i o n

3. Interfaces

3.0 Data structure

The starting point (Input) of both groups had been the same: a text

splitted off in IUs, equipped by a numeration of the IUs, provided

by SLANG1.

The Bottom Up-group created a semantic segmentation above the

sequence of the strings/wordforms. These semantic units are the

very addresses for any semantic analysis. The type of results

obtained is equivalent to a multitude of semantic/pragmatic

descriptions reflecting which linguistic behavior is

possible/allowed in that resp. language. In other words: These

analyses are of grammatical type. 118 Therefore all these analyses

should and can be stored in a Data Base and later can be used to

describe generally the way, how semantic/pragmatic features can be

expressed in that individual language.

Additionally the results may also serve to characterize thatindividual text that had been described. As had been done inTHLI 7/ii charts may show the distribution of individualsemantic or pragmatic items in that text. And these insightsmay help to interprete that individual text.

On die other side: The Top Down-group mainly used

wordforms/strings. With that material new insights have been added:

KHS, Actors, isotopies etc. Instead of an application of term paths

coming from the "Basic categories" new abbreviations for text

segmentation, new designations have been introduced. That means:

these results are different in several respects from the results of

the Bottom-up-group:

1. The results primarily describe that individual text, itsstructure. They gain their relevance on the basis and withinthe framework of that individual text.

2. It might be that these results and specific aspects can bereused and integrated - at least partly - within the termsand viewpoints of the Bottom-Up-Group. And after a

118 "Grammar" understood in a wide sense, comprising - as we do here- Semantics and Pragmatics.

transformation needed some of these insights can beovertaken by the Data Base. But all that is a derivation.

3. The data structure of both groups is different and remainsdifferent. We do not aim at a complete integration of thesedifferent types of data/results. In the actual paragraph weonly ask in which cases some results of one group can beassimilated and reused by the other.

4. The Top-Down-Group mainly describes the content-structure ofthat individual text and only to a lesser degree or onlyimplicitly the verbal behavior in that resp. language.

5. Not as exclusive opposition, but describing clear differentaccents one can say: the Bottom-Up-Group analyzes the waysone can use that individual language in expressing contentelements; the Top-Down-Group communicates - on that basis -what are the intentions of the author in that specific text.

6. The Top-Down-Procedure has the advantage of elaboratingcertain insights of textual structure rather quickly be itby its own issue or by reusing some results of thebottom-up-group. Therefore these modes of acceleration oftext description should be used by deliberate concatenationof steps coming from both types of analysis.

7. There will remain some procedures (e.g. Thema/Rhema,Isotopy) that can t be exploited in view of Data Baseentries based on term paths. Such results have their ownvalue for description of that specific text and complete allresults stored in relation to term paths. These procedureshelp - after all detailed analysis - to get again anunderstanding of the text as a whole entity.

Whereas we don t aim at a total integration of the two data

structures we ll ask: At which step of analysis it could be fruitful

(and accelerate the analysis) for one group to use results meanwhile

obtained by the other group?

Within a computer assisted analysis we have to define precisely the

point(s) where it is required that the opposite group (B) equally

has reached a certain type of results. If the opposite group offers

the results needed, the own analysis may proceed, otherwise

advancing of group A will be stopped. 119

Tags (or data format) added to the text by the opposite group that

are helpful for my own actual analysis (and only these!) should be

integrated into the data structure of the actual group after an

appropriate transformation .

119 On the basis of actual insights it can be presupposed that"group A" normally is equivalent with "BOTTOM UP". Proceeding inthat direction will be stopped at some point(s), whenever someprocedures in "TOP DOWN"-section are not yet available.

3.1 Correspondences

Theoretically it is plausible that reusing insights will be possible

in both directions: A B or A B. But the main transfer mode

will be: TOP DOWN BOTTOM UP. The main reason is, that analysis by

means of Levels + termpaths reaches the highest degree of

specification. So text analysis available in that data format will

be very flexible and intricate.

But there will remain insights of TOP DOWN procedure that cannot be

transformed adequately into BOTTOM UP. Therefore information

retrieval - as described in that chapter - will often use results

from both lanes of analysis. 120 Terms and levels of BOTTOM UP may

not represent all aspects being described. But that description

system offers a great transparency and theoretical consistency. So

it should be the aim to avoid wholes and unanalyzed levels.

Creating later a GUI has to take into account these respective

constraints.

There are correspondences between insights coming from the

bottom-up- and the top-down-strategy. It should be tested which of

the issues gives quicker and easier good results. Perhaps even the

results of the one issue can be controlled by those of the other.

Some theses:

3.2 KHS

3.2.1 A KHS can not cross the borders of a TGE

3.2.2 The introduction of a direct speech coincides with the change:

"predicate"/Semantics "Code Epistemologie"/Textual Grammar.

3.2.3 Cluster - analysis: Which word forms obviously have a high

affinity to each other? Can this distributional result be used to

120 Previously we had the idea that TOP DOWN completely should betransformed into BOTTOM UP categories. But there is no need forsuch an assumption. One can think of a selfsufficiency of bothtypes of analysis, but at some points there is an overlap: oneand the same result stored in different ways. In such a case weuse the faster way of analysis to promote BOTTOM UP procedure.

determine pragmatically a certain thematic field (ISOTOPY, cf.

2.4.1)?

3.2.4 Where IUs do occur fulfilling two conditions: (1) They are

placed outside a direct speech and - (2) - they offer indicators for

CODES/modalities (level doesn t matter in search procedure, but has

to be respected in interpretation). In such cases we are confronted

with subjective valuations of the implicit narrator . 121

3.3 Insights from (Expression-) SYNTAX

Before SLANG2 (Semantics/Pragmatics) will be started many results

already have been gathered by the program SLANG1: Letting aside all

procedures that belong to the chapter "Preparation of the Text"

primarily we are interested in the results of the analysis of the

expression level. By different kinds of distributional analysis it

is possible to obtain automatically the following types of results:

3.3.1 A given string of words - is it in the individual text and/or

in the corpus it belongs to a very frequent chain (then we are

confronted with a formula)? Or is it very frequent with one

variation at one point (it seems to be a creative and strategic

alteration)? Question of "collocations".

3.3.3

3.4 SEMEME

3.4.1 The critical examination of <<K:-meanings ( 2.5 ) completes what

has been begun in 1.1.1 .

3.5 DEICTIC ELEMENTS (Pronouns, Adverbs etc.)

3.5.1 Different Moduls need the information whether a Semantic Unit

is of the type "Deictic Element" (Anaphor/Kataphor). Such an element

has no content in itself but points to an "anchor element" to which

it is linked (key word: "resolution of pronouns"). Just after start

121 Whereas modal filtering in IUs belonging to a direct speechfirstly point to the meaning of a figure of the text = actor.

of SLANG2 the user has to ascertain whether that information is at

hand:

- do we dispose of a list of Deictic Elements in the languageof the text under description?

- if yes: the user at least has to control the entries and tocorrect/complete them if necessary;

- if no: the user creates a new list for that new language inconcordance with the already existing lists. By comparisonthe user may see what is needed.

- linking the deictic element with its "anchor point"presupposes that the segmentation into "Semantic Units" hasalready been done.

3.5.2 Comparison of Textsegmentation by different Moduls: KSH +Deictic Elements. Do they reinforce the same segmentation of theText? Or are there tensions (e.g. connections by pronouns despite achange in speech contributions)? - How does "Renominalization" fitinto the results (e.g. designation of an actor in a specific manneronly inside the speech contributions of one participant)?

3.6 SYSTEMATIC EXPLOITATION OF THE DATA BASE

3.6.1 Function words constitutive meanings

Every word form had got a definition whether it represents afunction word or a constitutive meaning . SEE Ch. 1.1.1 .

Moreover it could happen that one wordform stands for severalsemantic unities, e.g. /Schaukelstuhl/ <<SCHAUKEL>>[constitutivemeaning] + <<STUHL>>[constitutive meaning].Whereas /Fürsprecher/ <<FÜR>>[function word] +<<SPRECHER>>[constitutive meaning]. 122 In SLANG2 we are dealing withthe "meaning"-part. 123 On the basis of the BOTTOM-Up- resp.TOP-DOWN-Moduls different kinds of questions can be answered:

3.6.1.1 FW : CW - ratio

Comparing different texts on that basis may help in authoridentification. 124

3.6.1.2 Neighbourhood of CWs

SEE issues of B.B.RIEGER resp. J.HERINGER 125 We may analyse thedistances between cws/SEMEMES in different texts and compare theirprofile. SEE program "TAMEL" - K.-Sh. RAFF.

(Linking of "meaning" categories to "word forms" needed?)

122 Reminder: /. . ./ signifies word forms , whereas <<. . . >> re-presents meanings attached to the word forms.

123 At some points additionally insights from the analysis of "ex-pression"-level - (Ausdrucks-)SYNTAX - will be incorporated.

124 SEE lecture "Konstitutierung des Textes und Ausdruckssyntax" ch.4.4.4.

125 Both working on the basis of an intuitive prepared corpus ofword forms .

3.6.1.3 Isotopies and "Binnenwortschatz"

Any text gets its own profile by its main isotopies represented init. On the level of "(Ausdrucks-)Syntax" we saw e.g. those areas ofa specific text which use a special vocabulary. So we can comparethe insights coming from expression level with those based oncontent understanding.

But the analysis shouldn t be restricted to "Binnenwortschatz". Inrespect to expression level all important results concerning worddistribution should be used for comparison with the distribution ofisotopies.

3.6.1.4 Distribution of "Pragmatische Wortarten"

SEE ch. 2.6 . Two aspects can be reused, both crossing thetraditional categories of word types (Nomen, Verb, Adjektiv) orlevels of interpretation (Semantik, TXTGR, TXTLI, TXTPR).

3.6.1.4.1 Areas of dominant degree of abstraction

All three classes of words had been analysed concerning their degreeof abstraction (E|P|A1 - E|P|A3). Now, one can ask about thedistribution of the abstraction degrees in the text: where is E|P|A1predominant (the socalled "Konkreta"), where the E|P|A2 type, andwhere E|P|A3 (mere "Abstrakta")?

Where do we have a clash of abstraction degrees of different type("er schwamm (P1) in Wonnen (A3)")? In such cases we automaticallyassume a metaphor. These instances should be offered to the user inorder to do analysis of such stylistic features: BOTTOM UP, meaningunit

8 , SEE 1.9.1 .

3.6.1.4.2 Areas of dominant Path-types

The Bottom-up analysis attributed term paths to meaning units (ofdifferent type according to the resp. level of analysis). It ispossible now to give an overview where in the text the same termpath is used - neglecting the fact that the term path may be relatedto a noun|verb|adjective, and neglecting the question of abstractiondegree.

"Das steile Bergmassiv zog sich bis zum Horizont hin" - in all cwsof the sentence a topological information is implied: "steil,Berg(TXTLI), hinziehen(TXTGR), Horizont(TXTLI)".

- the head of the path sometimes must be neglected (e.g.ADJUNKTION, LEXPRAG);

- the same with the level of analysis (SEMANTIK, TXTGR, TXTLI,TXTPR)

In such a way it can be shown how homogeneous the text isconstructed on meaning level (SEE G REIMAS, s emescontextuels/Klasseme).

3.6.1.5 Synopsis of the different field types

Even on the mere level of Cws we dispose of different insightsillustrating the coherence of the text. The different aspects maypoint to different parts of the text. Or some of them may point to

one part, thus pointing to a climax waiting for special descriptionand valuation in the act of interpretation.

We need a tool helping to use all DB entries for interpretation.Additionalle to what had been said: certainly several concepts ofinterpretation may be seen as representing a specific selection ofour DB entries.

E. g. what points to an "allwissender Erzähler"? - The occurence of"modal" statements (levels: Semantics and Textual Grammar) outside areported Direct Speech. In such a case it is the (hidden,omniscient) narrator offering us his valuations. Whereas modalfiltering within direct speech represents the meaning of an actor ofthe text.

3.7 DATA MINING tool

The tool comprises:

1. Allows free access to all types of DB entries. Because theDB is still under construction we need a dynamic access,offering different results at different times (furthermoduls had been added meanwhile). The DB should not onlyprovide data of analysis but also a header for each type ofanalysis. That header can be reused by DATA MINING tool, sowe won t have different headers for the same procedure (inthis SLANG2-Paper, in data base, in DATA MINING tool). SEE:/afs/wsi/ct/share/cvsrepos

2. Default: analysis of a specific text (as element of DB).Possible: extending the query to only a specific part of thespecific text or to a group of texts or to all texts of theDB.

3. Browsing the types of DB entries available for thatindividual text: the analysis of a text needs a lot of time.By the actual function it is possible to get an overview:which steps had already been done, which still wait foranalysis?

4. User can compose a specific type of query - going indetails, choosing specific termpaths on defined levels. So acomplex of different conditions forms one type of query.

5. Store the type of DB query under an easily understandablelabel. Possibility for comments and explanations.

6. In contrast: User may only define a section of the text(default: whole text) and see, which DB entries for thatpart are available - on all levels and all categories/paths.

7. Output for (additional) graphical presentation

3.8 Transformation Tool

3.8.1 Tasks

The tool comprises (in several points parallel to 3.7 ):

1. Allows free access to all types of DB entries. Because theDB is still under construction we need a dynamic access,offering different results at different times (furthermoduls had been added meanwhile, perhaps). SEE:/afs/wsi/ct/share/cvsrepos

2. Default: analysis of a specific text (as element of DB).

3. TOP DOWN BOTTOM UP: Identify the TOP DOWN modul whosedata should be converted in data structure of BOTTOM UP

4. Definition: which results of the resp. TOP DOWN modul areable to be transformed into the BOTTOM UP structure 126

5. Programming these interrelations in an open way that step bystep all TOP DOWN moduls can be treated in the same manner.

6. May be that we can learn from an existing TOP DOWN modul("Pragmatische Wortarten" / Natascha Stäbler, SEE Ch. 2.6 ):the analysis of nouns, adjectives, verbs on TOP DOWN lanedirectly writes its results in BOTTOM UP procedure. 127

3.8.2 insights to be transferred

3.8.2.1 KHS (SEE ch. 2.1.1/2 )

DS = TG: AKTANT-2.Aktant-ObjektDS = TG: CODES-Epistemologie-dynamisch-emissiv-dictivAII - WII - EII - NII: TG: ILLOKUTION-phatisch. . .

3.8.2.2 Renominalisation (SEE ch. 2.1.3 )

3.8.2.3 Pronomina (SEE ch. 2.1.3 )

3.8.2.4 Actors (SEE ch. 2.2 )

3.8.2.5 Text Actants (SEE ch. 2.3 )

126 For term trees: SEE http:/www-ct.informatik.uni-tuebin-gen.de/ct/interaktiv/hauptbaum.html

127 That is not totally comparable, but in some respect: Gatheringresults in a more intuitive way, connection to DB, storing theresults on a (in that case: fixed) methodological level (TL) +appropriate termpath + additional characterization (degree ofabstraction).

3.8.2.6 Isotopies (SEE ch. 2.4 )

3.8.2.7 Thema - Rhema (SEE ch. 2.4 )

3.8.2.8 Segmentation (SEE ch. 2.5 )

3.8.2.9 "Pragmatische Wortarten" (SEE ch. 2.6 )

3.8.3 TOP DOWN BOTTOM UP: Level + MEANING UNIT + Path

Taking one type (of analysis) stored in DB the user should determine

to which kind of data structure in BOTTOM UP lane it is equivalent.

The diagram shows that users don t have free choice, but only a

restricted one. Definitively there are two restrictions. Depending

of the level only a restricted range of meaning units is accessible.

Depending on the resp. MU the question of term paths can be

answered. Some MUs don t use the tree of terms at all.

TOP DOWN BOTTOM UP:Level possible unit path

type TL MU1

0 trees,exc. LEXPRAG

MU9 -----------------

MU8 trees,exc. LEXPRAG

TG MU7 trees,exc. LEXPRAG

MU6 ------------

MU4 trees,exc. LEXPRAG

Semantics MU3 trees,exc. LEXPRAG

MU2 tree:ADJUNK

MU1 trees, exc. LEXPRAG 128

Data Base categories corresponding to "MEANING UNITS" ("BOTTOM UP"):

SEE 1.3.5

Data Base categories belonging to "TOP DOWN":

9 dialogs

128 Critical analysis of constitutive meanings is done by Staebler-Program, cf. Ch. 2.6.

17 isotope categories

18 isotope hierarchies

19 isotopes

28 renominalisation categories

29 renominalisation

30 run up

35 thema occurences

36 themas

3.9 Graphics

The results of every modul (stored in data base) should be addressed

by a Graphical Interface presenting them as diagram.

x-axis is always the sequence of the text. Optionally one can use

the segmentation into IUs as units of x-axis . Or one can neglect IUs

and take the sequence of wordforms: wordform1 .. . . wordform

n .

The criteria ( y-axis ) depend on the resp. modul. For each one

colours, heights etc. have to preselected and defined. It would be

fine, if users would have the possibility to change these default

values.

I n f o - q u e l l e n

4. URLs

1) http://www.hum.uva.nl/ ewn - EuroWordNet

2) http://www.ub.es/gilcub/SIMPLE/simple.html

3) http://www.cogsci.princeton.de/ wn/

4) http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

5) http://www.canoo.net/index.html

6) http://www.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/lsd/

7) http://

V e r s c h i e b u n g e n

5. Information retrieval

5.1 Interests

Having done such a content analysis of text data we dispose of many

informations. But at first all these remain opaque because they

still are unstructured. 129 Therefore programs of an intelligent data

retrieval are needed.

One main interest in such data mining is to see, which "carreer" a

semantic unit is making pursuing different analyses on different

methodological levels.

Second interest: What are the effects of such "Verschiebungen" in

the immediate environment?

"Die Wahrheit macht euch frei."

Semantics: "Wahrheit" plays the role of the "1.AKTANT". Itbelongs to the class of "Substantives" that convey theimpression to refer to discrete things or persons.

"freimachen" semantically is "initiative" = an activity basedon will and selfconscience. So "Wahrheit" is modelled like areal person. On the level of Textual Grammar "freimachen" isnot the same as liberation from prison: deictical informations(time, place) are missing. More likely "befreien" means aninner "freeing". But of what? It is not said. At least<<BEFREIEN>> conveys a massive positive valuation.

Textlinguistically the SEMEME linked to "Wahrheit" is a meaningunit of the heighest degree of abstraction. It points to theCode EPISTEMOLOGY, promesses knowledge and orientation. Evenhere it is not said: knowledge of what?

Taking together these insights we feel a great tension:

One can enumerate a lot of information deficits that prevent usfrom taking the text in its literal meaning.

The shifting within <<WAHRHEIT>> leads to the same result: Thatisn t an active person. All promises coming from outside aredestroyed. <<WAHRHEIT>> alwayse is a function of my mind.

129 That is said not in the sense of computer science, but in theview point of a user. He is in the situation vor lauter Bäumenden Wald nicht mehr zu sehen.

If we take stock of these insights the second meaning of thesentence seems to be a sarcastic one: Frivolous a speakeralludes to positive values while at the same time he isdespising his addressees (he is withholding informations thatwould allow an understanding in the literal meaning).

5.2 Methodological reflexions

To say 5.1 in other words: Up to now we dispose of a lot of static

annotations to different kinds of semantic/pragmatic units. It is

now necessary to approach the dynamic act of reading.

Using the different levels of analysis attributed to one wordform or sequence of word forms we can show the complex andoften complicated activity of decoding a message by therecipient. Normally that activity is done unconsciously. But byusing our framework of interpretation it is now possible tomake explicit what usually is going off unobserved.

In the case of misunderstanding, anger or stylistic effects(humour) it can be detected why such an effect happened. It iscontended that any such psychic impression, effect or feelingis based on a describable literary structure.

I m p l i c a t i o n s

6. Turning back to front

In contrast to the positive analyses and at the same time using allterminological positions where "void" had been stated it is nowpossible to elaborate the contrast model of the explicit text.

F u r t h e r s e a r c h s t r a t e g i e s

7.1 Actors

7.1.1 Starting by Actors

In 2.2.1 the Actors of the text had been identified. Differentsemantic units of the text got the same label because they all referto the same person (understood in a wide sense).

Now these labels (from Top Down-issue) can be taken and alldescriptions referring to the same semantic unit(s) (fromBottom-Up-issue) are collected.

So we first get a static model: How that Actor is depicted by thetext? Quantitative analyses should be implied:

How often the actor is referred to by proper name?

How often he plays the role of "1.AKTANT", "2.AKTANT" etc?

Comparing these data of different actors allows interpretations oftheir importance, dependency, relations.

7.1.2 Shifting in the course of the text

See .. /daten/jgbn.pdf - page 5 (Nr. 3). The same data as in 7.1.1can be exploited dynamically : sometimes the shape of an actor at thebeginning of the text is different from that of the end. Theattributes given to him have changed. That can be retraced.

7.1.3 Illustration by grafical network

Appendix 1

Text als Hierarchie

zu: vprag4.13

TPE

TLE1 TLE2 TLE1

TGE1 TGE2 TGE3 TGE4 TGE5

ÄE ÄE ÄE ÄE ÄE ÄE ÄE ÄE ÄE ÄE ÄE ÄE ÄE ÄE ÄE

Appendix 2

Die Inhaltsstruktur des Textes als Hierarchie

zu: vsyst6.2 vprag6.23 vprag4.3

====================================================================PRAGMATIK: TEXTPRAGMATIK

====================================================================PRAGMATIK: TEXTLINGUISTIK

TLE

1 .......... TLE

1 .......................

TLE

2 .......................................

TLE

3 .......

TLE

4 ..

====================================================================

PRAGMATIK: TEXTGRAMMATIK

TGE

1 TGE

2 TGE

3 TGE

4 TGE

5 TGE

6 TGE

7 TGE

8

====================================================================

SEMANTIKÄE

1 .ÄE..ÄE..ÄE..ÄE..ÄE..ÄE..ÄE..ÄE..ÄE..ÄE..ÄE..ÄE..ÄE..ÄE..ÄE

n

Durchgeführt ist dieses Konzept in:SCHWEIZER,H, (Hg.): Computerunterstützte Textinterpretation. DieJosefsgeschichte beschrieben und interpretiert im Dreischritt:Syntax - Semantik - Pragmatik. THLI 7/i-iii. Tübingen 1995.

Appendix 3

Hierarchie in Texten, Bsp. Josefsgeschichte

zu: vsyst6.2 vprag6.24 vprag4.3

Im INTERNET:

Am Text der ganzen Josefsgeschichte werden alle ÄE - TGE - TLEsichtbar gemacht (und einiges mehr):

http://www-ct.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/ct/hypdeck.html

Abstraktes Modell, das die Segmentierung im Rahmen der dreiKoordinaten: Interpretationsebene - Basiskategorien - sequentiellerText illustriert. Es wird auch deutlich, dass die Segmentierung derAusdrucksebene ( Mo = Morph Wort) von der hierarchischen Strukturder Bedeutungsebene klar unterscheidbar ist.

http://www-ct.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/daten/ht31.ps oder .pdf

Appendix 4

Semantik Basisterminologie - Übersicht

zu: vsem9.5 vprag1.971 vsyst5.1

aus:

SCHWEIZER, H (Hg.), Computerunterstützte Textinterpretation. THLI 7,Tübingen 1995. Bd. III.

Eine erste Darstellung der Termini samt theoretischer Erläuterungin:

SCHWEIZER, H, Metaphorische Grammatik. St. Ottilien 1981, 21990.bzw.

SCHWEIZER, H, Biblische Texte verstehen. Stuttgart 1986. Kap. 3.

Semantik arbeitet mit zwei Einschränkungen:- sie bezieht sich nur auf die wörtliche

Bedeutung (noch nicht auf die übertragene =gemeinte Bedeutung)

- beschreibt den einzelnen Satz (nicht einenicht-satzhafte Äußerungseinheit; noch nichtden Zusammenhang mehrererÄußerungseinheiten)

Semantik ist die erste Stufe eines zweistufigen Konzepts zurBeschreibung von Textbedeutungen. Zweite Stufe = Pragmatik.

Aktant Prädikat | | Namen Prädikation

Illokution ( Codes ( f ( a , b ) + Topologie + Chronologie))=Sprechakt =Moda- litäten + Adjunktionen (fakultativ)

Appendix 5

Inhaltlich (nicht-) konstitutiv

zu: vsem3.17

aus: FREUNDLICH, R, Einführung in die Semantik. Darmstadt 1972

(3-5)

Am Zustandekommen komplexer Semanteme durch Funktor und Argumentsind nicht nur solche Sprachausdrücke beteiligt, die selbst schoneinen jeweils bestimmten Inhalt ausdrücken, sondern auch solche, diekeinen bestimmten Inhalt ausdrücken. Es ist nötig, beide Arten vonSprachausdrücken voneinander zu unterscheiden. Wir nennen jeneSprachausdrücke, die Inhaltliches darstellen oder bezeichnen,"inhaltlich konstitutiv" und jene Sprachausdrücke, die keinenbestimmten Inhalt darstellen, dabei aber die inhaltlichen Ausdrückein Beziehung zueinander setzen oder modizieren, inhaltlich nichtkonstitutiv.

Inhaltlich konstitutiv sind alle Namen (Substantiva,Substantivierungen, Pronomina), alle Adjektiva, Numeralia, Vollverbain allen ihren Formen und viele Adverbia (wie z.B. alleAdjektiv-Adverbia). Inhaltlich nicht konstitutiv sind alleHilfsverba in allen ihren Formen - sofern sie nicht als Vollverbaauftreten -, bestimmter und unbestimmter Artikel, Präpositionen undKonjunktionen.

Konkrete Beispiele für inhaltlich konstitutive Ausdrücke sind:

a) aus dem Bereich der Substantiva: "Franz", "Herr Meyer", "Wien","Stadt", "Seele", "Geist", "Geistigkeit", "Abstraktheit".

b) aus dem Bereich der Substantivierungen: "der Lachende", "dieUnzufriedenen", "das Abstrakte", "etwas Schönes", "nichts Gutes","Schönes", "Gutes" - aber auch "Etwas", "Manches".

c) aus dem Bereich der Pronomina: "er", "wir", "mein", "sein","euer", "man", "jemand", "niemand".

d) aus dem Bereich der Adjektiva: "schön" (-er, -e, -es)","städtisch (-e, -er, -es)", "geistig (-e, -er, -es)".

e) aus dem Bereich der Numeralia: "zwei" (wie z.B. in der Wendung"zwei Freunde"), "dritter" ("dritte", "drittes"), "alle", "jeder"("jede", "jedes"), "einige".

f) aus dem Bereich der Vollverba: "gehen", "sagen", "erlauben","verzeihen".

g) aus dem Bereich der Adverbia: "schön", (wie z.B. in derWendung"... singt schön" - wie überhaupt jedes Adjektiv als Adverbgebraucht werden kann), "oben", "rechts", "heute".

Konkrete Beispiele für inhaltlich nicht konstitutive Ausdrücke sind:

h) aus dem Bereich der Hilfsverba: "ist", "hat", "wird", "soll","darf".

i) aus dem Bereich der Präpositionen: "in", "auf", "mit", "binnen","neben", "wegen", "während".

j) aus dem Bereich der Konjunktionen: "und", "oder", "auch", "denn","wenn", "nichtdestoweniger", "obwohl", "daß", "mithin".

k) aus dem Bereich der Adverbia: "sehr", "gar", "gar zu","wenigstens", "zwar", "freilich".

Bei der Feststellung, ob ein vorgegebenes einzelnes Wort inhaltlichkonstitutiv ist, können sich im Falle von Namen, Adjektiven,Numeralien und Vollverben kaum Schwierigkeiten ergeben - denn allediese Worte drücken deutlich etwas Inhaltliches aus - hingegenkönnen bei Adverbien gewisse Schwierigkeiten auftreten, so daß unterUmständen nicht ohne weiteres eine klare Entscheidung getroffenwerden kann. Es ist deshalb zweckmäßig, nach einem Kriterium zusuchen, das die Entscheidung, ob ein vorgegebenes einzelnes Wortinhaltlich konstitutiv oder inhaltlich nicht konstitutiv ist,erleichtert. Ein solches Kriterium kann durch die folgendeÜberlegung gefunden werden: Wenn ein Sprachausdruck vorliegt, dernicht schon deshalb inhaltlich konstitutiv ist, weil er ein Nameoder ein Adjektivum oder ein Numerale oder ein Vollverbum ist oderweil er aus einem inhaltlich konstitutiven und einem inhaltlichnicht konstitutiven Ausdruck zusammengesetzt ist, dann muß es zuihm, falls er inhaltlich konstitutiv ist, irgendeinen Namen geben,mit dem er, durch die Kopula verbunden, einen sinnvollen Satzergibt. Denn immer dann, wenn ein Name (gleichgültig, ob er einfachoder zusammengesetzt, ob er ein Individual- oder ein Allgemeinnameist) mit Hilfe der Kopula mit einem anderen inhaltlichen Ausdruckverbunden wird, entsteht ein Satz; wird ein Name aber mit einemAusdruck verbunden, der keinen bestimmten Inhalt zu dem Namenhinzufügt, dann kann kein Satz entstehen.

Das gesuchte Kriterium kann deshalb folgendermaßen formuliertwerden: ein vorgegebenes einzelnes Wort A, das als Adverb auftritt,ist genau dann inhaltlich konstitutiv, wenn seine Einsetzung in dasSchema "X ist A" einen sinnvollen Satz ergibt - andernfalls ist esinhaltlich nicht konstitutiv. Dabei symbolisiert die Variable "X"das Wort "etwas" oder "irgend etwas" oder das Wort "die Sache" oderdas Wort "das Ereignis" oder sonst irgendeinen Namen im Singularoder Plural.

Betrachten wir beispielsweise die Worte "gerne", "besonders","sofort", "möglicherweise" einerseits und die Worte "selten","vorbei", "hier", "möglich" andererseits, dann erkennt man, daß dieletzten vier der erwähnten Worte, in das Schema, "X ist A" für "A"eingesetzt, je einen sinnvollen Satz ergeben - wie z.B. "Etwas istselten", "Das Ereignis ist vorbei", "Karl ist hier", "Die Sache istmöglich", während die Einsetzung jedes der zuerst erwähnten Worte indieses Schema keinen Satz ergibt, wie z.B. "Etwas (die Sache) istgerne (besonders, sofort)" oder "Die Sache ist möglicherweise". Dieletzten vier Worte sind also inhaltlich konstitutiv, die ersten vierWorte aber sind inhaltlich nicht konstitutiv. Ebenso kann unserKriterium auf jedes der Beispiele in g) einerseits und in k)andererseits angewendet werden.

Appendix 6

Determination, Numerus

zu: vsem3.33

aus: H. SCHWEIZER, Anhang zur Methodik, in: H. SCHWEIZER (Hg.),Computerunterstützte Textinterpretation. THLI 7. Tübingen 1995.Bd.3, 55ff.

" Person:

Die übliche Durchnumerierung bei Konjugation oder Pronomina(1.,2.,3. Person) ist semantisch nichtssagend und suggeriert zudemeine prinzipielle Gleichartigkeit, die nicht gegeben ist, wenn man -was sich bei allen semantischen Einzelfragen empfiehlt - alsHintergrund für die Suche nach Lösungen die

face-to-face -Kommunikation zum Maßstab nimmt. Danach ist die1. Person als Sprecher, die 2. Person als Partner, die 3. Person alsaußerhalb der Kommunikation stehendes Wesen (Objekt, Person) zubestimmen, über das gesprochen wird. Das Numerus-Problem formulierenwir separat. Erst auf dem Hintergrund dieser Definitionen sind neueFormalisierungen möglich: Sprecher = SP; Kommunikationspartner = KP;Kommunikationsthema = KT.

Determination: 130

Nur bei der letzten Person-Kategorie besteht eine echte Alternativeunter dem Aspekt der Determination: Es kann sein, daß derGegenstand, über den gesprochen wird, bekannt (=definit) oderziemlich unbestimmt (=indefinit) ist. Dagegen muß vorausgesetztwerden, daß dann, wenn 1. oder 2. Person im Spiel sind, einefunktionierende Kommunikation behauptet wird, was nur geht, wennderen Partner eo ipso als [definit] zu gelten haben. Im übrigen istdieser Gesichtspunkt verquickt mit dem des

Numerus: 131

Sowohl im Singular wie im Plural kann man von Kommunikationsthemendefinit oder indefinit sprechen. Pluralische Rede in ihrer definitenwie in der indefiniten Form kann Zählung beinhalten. Darin liegtalso kein Unterscheidungskriterium. Eine Sonderform von definiterDetermination + Plural ist die Behauptung, alle Elemente einerKlasse zu erfassen/zu meinen: generisch. Sowohl bei [generisch] wiebei [indefinitem Plural] ist neben dem Bezeichnen des ganzen

130 In Standardgrammatiken wird die Fragestellung oft verkürzt aufdie Suche nach Artikel oder nicht ("steht ein bestimmter Artikeloder ein unbestimmter?", z.B.: "das Auto / ein Auto". Das istsemantisch jedoch eine falsche Perspektive: Es wird lediglichnach einem Mittel gefragt, Determination auszudrücken, nichtjedoch die Frage beantwortet, was Determination eigentlich sei.Außerdem wird übersehen, dass es neben dem Artikel eine Reiheweiterer Mittel gibt, ein Nomen hinsichtlich seiner Determinati-on so oder so zu markieren.

131 In Standardgrammatiken häufig das gleiche Bild wie schon zuvor:Die Kategorien "Singular" und "Plural" werden als bekannt vor-ausgesetzt, so dass nur noch gefragt wird, mit welchen Mittelnz.B. "Plural" gebildet wird: "Tisch Tische" oder "Rad Räder"oder "Baum Bäume" oder "Drucker Drucker(?)". - Auch hier: Aus-kunft über die Mittel ist nicht auch schon eine Auskunft dar-über, was man semantisch unter "Numerus" verstehen soll/kann. Eswird sich schnell zeigen, dass nur die Rede von "Singular vs.Plural" viel zu undifferenziert ist.

Kollektivs ( alle Kühe bzw. mehrere Kühe ) die distributiveAusdrucksweise möglich: durch Nennung eines Einzelexemplars wird dasganze Kollektiv bezeichnet ( jegliche Kuh bzw. manche Kuh ). -Schließlich wird umgangssprachlich mit Bereichsangaben gearbeitet,die eher einer Tendenzanzeige entsprechen, als daß sielogisch-mathematisch fixierbar wären. Die Aussage die meisten Kühemeint offenbar: mehr als die Hälfte, aber nicht alle . DieseAussageweise spielt sich im Rahmen der indefiniten Determination ab,denn um welche Kühe es sich genau handelt, weiß einKommunikationspartner nicht. Entsprechend signalisiert: einigeKühe , daß nur ein geringer Teil gemeint ist, also weniger als 50Prozent. Aus diesem Grund gibt es den Strukturbaum Numerus imnachfolgenden Schema in zweifacher Ausfertigung, abhängig von derjeweiligen Entscheidung bei der Determination.

Semem

| |

SPRECHER K-PARTNER K-THEMA | | | Determination Determination | | / \ definit definit definit indefinit | | | | | | | | Numerus Numerus / \ / \ singular plural singular plural / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ Zahl generisch Zahl Bereich / | / | kollektiv distributiv >50% <50%

Genus:

Das Problem des Genus kann aus der weiteren semantischen Betrachtungausgeschlossen werden. Der Genusunterschied ist ein einzelsprachlichwirkendes und hilfreiches Vereinbarungssystem, das in diesem Rahmenoft durchaus interessante inhaltliche Konnotationentransportiert. 132 Außerdem liefert es durch unterschiedlicheKonstruktion ( die Eva ging zum Baum, er ging zur Bar ) wichtigeOrientierungshilfen für die Textrezeption. 133 Aber all diesfunktioniert nur in der Einzelsprache. Die andere Einzelsprache kannmit dem gleichen Gesichtspunkt bereits wieder ganz anders umgehen(der Mond, la lune, the moon). - Daher verzichten wir auf dieBehandlung des grammatischen Geschlechts beim vorliegenden

132 <<SONNE>> ist im Hebräischen "männlich" - wohl aus dem mytholo-gischen Grund, dass man sich die <<ERDE>> "weiblich" vorstellte.Das Wirken der <<SONNE>> wurde also als Geschlechtsakt vorge-stellt, durch den Fruchtbarkeit praktiziert wird.

133 Der Verweis auf eine Person durch "er" kann sich unmöglich auf"Eva" beziehen. Ein zu "er" passendes Nomen muss weiter oben imText genannt sein.

Versuch, eine sprachübergreifende semantische Terminologie zufinden. 134

Dass manchmal "grammatisches" und "natürliches Geschlecht" - "derMann", "die Frau" - zusammenpassen, hilft nicht weiter. Nicht nurMark TWAIN verweist auf eine Inkonsequenz: der äußeren Form nachsind im Hebräischen "die Väter" = weiblich , dagegen "die Frauen" =

männlich .

Die Verwirrung resultiert aus dem grammatischen Terminus"Geschlecht/Genus". Davon sollte man nicht mehr reden undstattdessen das einzelsprachlich funktionierende Verweissystemneutral benennen, etwa "Verweissystem

1 = V

1 ", "Verweissystem

2 = V

2

usw.". Mit "Geschlecht" im normalen (=natürlichen) Sinn des Worteshaben die Verweissysteme nur in den wenigsten Fällen eineÜberlappung. 135

Weitere Erläuterungen

Plural: kollektiv distributiv: Neulich im Erdkundeunterricht. DerLehrer ruft Klaus auf: "Wie heißen die Einwohner von Madrid?" -"Woher soll ich das wissen? Das sind doch mehrere MillionenMenschen!"

Plural: definit indefinit: Epimenides, der Kreter, sagt: "Kretersind Lügner". Ist dies eine logische Antinomie? - Elemente einerAntwort:- der Wortlaut des Satzes ist mehrdeutig:- Sind "alle" Kreter ausnahmslos gemeint? -

definit...-generisch-kollektiv- Sind die Mehrzahl, also die meisten, aber eben nicht alle gemeint

("Kreter typischerweise/in der Regel ...")?indefinit...Bereich->50%

- Sind irgendwelche Kreter gemeint - ohne Andeutung der Quantität(="indefinit")? indefinit...pl

Nur im ersten Fall: Logische Antinomie. - Lehre: Logik darf nichtdirekt über einer Wortkette (=Ausdrücke) operieren; zunächst istoffenzulegen, welches Verständnis (=Semantik) gelten soll. Daraufnur kann sich logische Analyse beziehen.

plural-Zahl : manche Sprachen differenzieren noch in DUAL und einenPlural 2.

indefinit-plural- 50%: für die semantische Funktion "wenige" gibt esbisweilen den Terminus PAUKAL.

SPRECHER-plural-generisch-kollektiv : Hinter dem Pfad verbirgt sichschlichtes "Wir". Eine Wir-Gruppe spricht zu einem KP(Kommunikationspartner), einem "Du" oder einem "Ihr". Soweit diesemantische Perspektive ( exklusives "Wir"). - Indizien im Text -kritische Sichtung im Rahmen der Pragmatik - können anzeigen, dass

134 Mark TWAIN: "Every noun has a gender, and there is no sense orsystem in the distribution; so the gender of each must be lear-ned separately and by heart. In German, a young lady has no sex,while a turnip (=Rübe) has. Think what overwrought reverancethat shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for thegirl" ("The Awful German Language" in A Tramp Abroad (1880)).

135 Das Englische wäre demnach auf grammatischer Ebene völlig neu-tral, hätte keine Mehrzahl von Verweissystemen. Genau deshalbkann es sich die Sprache erlauben, dann, wenn klar ein natürli-ches Geschlecht im Spiel ist, differenzierend darauf Bezug zunehmen: " the father, he...; the mother, she..."

der KP ("Du"/"Ihr") bereits in das "Wir" eingeschlossen =vereinnahmt ist (Pfarrer: "Wir stehen" [obwohl alle noch sitzen]).Es liegt dann übertragenes, inklusives "Wir" vor: faktisch sprichteben doch nur ein singularischer SPRECHER zu einer Gruppe(strenggenommen ist das "Wir" des Sprechenden falsch); auslösenderSprechakt: die Gruppe soll zu gleichartigem Verhalten gedrängtwerden.

K.-Thema-Determination-indefinit-Numerus-plural-Bereich : Der KnotenBereich kann ersetzt werden durch Mengenfeld und dazugehörige

Blätter - vgl. vsem3.332. Dadurch wird dann noch klarer, wiesemantisch komplex die Frage nach "Numerus" ist: Vieles, wasscheinbar - laut traditioneller Auskunft - "Singular" ist, istsemantisch eine spezielle Art von "Plural", z.B. "viel Betrieb,mancher Arbeiter".

Appendix 7

Semantische Transkription

zu: vsem3.41

nach: H. Schweizer, Computerunterstützte Textinterpretation...,Bd.III, S.58f (Weiterentwicklung)

Vorschlag:

(a) ein Semem (=inhaltlich-konstitutive Einzelbedeutung) wird in<<...>> geboten, in Großschreibung, bei Verben im Infinitiv ,bei Nomina im Singular, also: <<GEHEN>>, <<HANS>>, <<MAUS>>,bei Bedarf - wie erläutert - durch Indizes mit separatfestgehaltener Definition präzisiert.

(b) Inhaltlich nicht-konstitutive Bedeutungen werden zwischen +...+und in Kleinschreibung festgehalten.

(c) Die die Kernbedeutung erfassenden Seme, die Klasseme sowie dieweiteren semantisch/pragmatischen Funktionsbestimmungen werdenzum jeweiligen Semem in Abkürzung hzinzugefügt, beides - wennbeides belegt - durch eckige Klammern verbunden. Die Sem- bzw.Funktionsbeschreibungen können auch für sich stehend in eckigenKlammern genannt werden.

(d) Semem-Gruppen werden durch {...} markiert. 136

(e) Trägt ein Semem noch keinen Index (z.B. <<TROMMEL 1 >>, so heißtdas, daß für das Semem noch keine Definition existiert. DieBedeutungsangabe hat folglich provisorischen Charakter.

Bsp.

Materialer Text:

"Er kam zu mir ins Zimmer."

Semantische Transkription der enthaltenen Sememe

{[<<KT>>def.sg.][<<KOMMEN>>sg.: DEIXIS Topologie-dislokaktiv-adventiv-allativ /

DEIXIS Chronologie-kontingent-relativ-vorzeitig]}{[+zu+:DEIXIS Topologie-dislokativ-adventiv-allativ][<<SP>>def.sg.]}{[+in+: ADJUNKTIONExplikation-Deixis-Topologie-dislokativ-adventiv-illativ][<<ZIMMER>>def.sg.]}

Vgl. "Kognitive Basiskategorien"http://www-ct.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/ct/interaktiv/hauptbaum.h-tml

136 compounds werden zuvor in ihre Einzelbestandteile zerlegt undfunktionell einander zugeordnet: <<SEITENWIND>> = <<WIND>> zu-sätzlich charakterisiert (=ADJUNK), als von der <<SEITE>> kom-mend: {<<WIND>> [<<SEITE>>:ADJUNKTION Deixis-Topologie-kontin-gent-dislokativ-allativ]}.

Appendix 8

Isotopie(en) // Thematische Selektion(en)

zu: vsyst6.42 vprag6.43

Isotopien Thema-Rhema

ww ww ww ww ww ww xx ww xx T

5 R

6

ww xx ww xx ww xx T

4

ww xx yy ww xx yy T

3 R

5

ww xx yy ww xx yy ww xx yy R

2

ww xx yy zz T2 -R

3

ww xx yy zz R4

ww xx yy zz T1 R

1

statisch-quantitativ dynamische Entfaltung

Befunde in der Josefsgeschichte: Erläuterung in:

ww = familia SCHWEIZER,H, Metaphori-xx = potestas sche Grammatik. ATS 15yy = locomotio St.Ottilien 21990. S.zz = cognitio 294-314. Oder Kurzform:

Vgl. RABE, N, Isotopien, in: SCHWEIZER,H, BiblischeSCHWEIZER,H, Computerunterstütz- Texte verstehen. Stutt-te Textinterpretation. THLI 7. gart 1986. S.101-106.Tübingen 1995. S.326-350. |

Appendix 9

Kommunikative Handlungsspiele (KHS)

Analyseraster / Textlinguistik 137

Anfangsindizien:

Redebeitrag (1): [von ÄEx bis ÄE

y | wer zu wem?]

...............Redebeitrag (n):

Endeindizien:

STEUERUNGEN:

Erzählerinterpretationen:

Steuerungen durch Akteure im Text (A/E/W/N - I=Sprecher;II=Partner): 138

Dialogthematische: 139

-responsiv:-teil-responsiv:-non-responsiv:

GESAMTMERKMALE:

(a) Soziokultureller Rahmen:

(b) Art des Kommunikationsaktes:

(c) Kommunikationssituation:

(d) Partner der Kommunikation - wie charakterisiert?

FAZIT/TENDENZ:

137 Vgl. H. SCHWEIZER, Kommunikative Handlungsspiele, in: ders.(ed.), Computerunterstützte Textinterpretation. Die Josefsge-schichte beschrieben und interpretiert im Dreischritt: Syntax-Semantik-Pragmatik. THLI 7/i. Tübingen 1995. S. 284-325.

138 Es wird vermerkt, welcher der Kommunikationspartner (der aktuel-le Sprecher oder der momentan Angesprochene) eine verbale odernon-verbale Steuerung der laufenden Kommunikation vornimmt. Die-se Steuerung kann sich auf den Anfang, das Ende, das Weiterfah-ren im aktuellen Redefluß, das Nicht-Reden-Wollen beziehen. WIbedeutet also, der aktuelle Sprecher signalisiert, daß er wei-terreden will (z.B. verbal durch "folgendermaßen" oder gestisch,indem er andere, die ihrerseits zu Wort kommen wollen, zurück-weist - beides impliziert NII = "Du sollst zunächst noch nichtzu Wort kommen"). AII bedeutet, daß der Sprecher dem Kommunika-tionspartner signalisiert, daß er nun seinerseits zu Wort kommensoll (z.B. verbal: "jetzt bist aber du dran / jetzt will ich vondir was hören ..." oder non-verbal durch Zeigegestus) etc.

139 Wie passen Antworten zu der betreffenden Frage? Sind sie voll-kommen zufriedenstellend, also responsiv ? Oder greifen sie nurTeilaspekte der Frage auf, lassen also andere unbeantwortet( teil-responsiv )? Oder bezieht sich die Antwort überhaupt nichtauf die Frage = non-responsiv (öfters in Interviews mit Politi-kern zu beobachten)?

Appendix 10:

SINNEINHEIT = Bedeutung1 + Bedeutung2

zu: vsem2.12

Sprachbenutzer benutzen Wörter/Sprachkonstruktionen, weil siegelernt haben, dass damit auf elementarer Ebene konstitutive(<<TISCH>>) oder nicht-konstitutive (<<UND>>) Bedeutungen verbundensind. Darauf aufbauend lassen sich größere Sinneinheitenkonstruieren, die je als selbstständig empfunden werden.

Eine solche Sinneinheit kann auf verschiedenen Ebenen/Perspektivenwahrgenommen werden; entsprechend hat sie je unterschiedlichenUmfang.

Immer aber wird eine Bedeutung1 (=A) durch eine Relation = + inBeziehung gesetzt zu einer Bedeutung2 (=B) .

Die Benennung durch Termini wechselt je nach Ebene. DerGrundmechanismus bleibt gleich.

Eine Sinneinheit setzt somit voraus:Analyse die Komponenten (3) einer Sinneinheit müssen

identifiziert und terminologisch benannt werdenSynthese die Sinneinheit wird als komplexes Ganzes verstanden:

über den Einzelteilen entsteht etwas qualitativ Neues.

Durch [ ] werden ergänzende Infos markiert, die nicht den Kern desbeschriebenen Vorgangs betreffen.

Zunächst: Zusammenstellung unterschiedlicher Begrifflichkeiten ,hinter denen immer die selbe Analyse/Synthese-Struktur steht.

A + B

Satzgegenstand Satzaussage"Die Universität ... ... arbeitet [seit 525 Jah-

ren]."

Bekanntes Neues"Die Vorlesung ... ... ist witzig."

Gegebene Information neu Ausgesagtes"Die Vorlesungsmaterialien ... wiegen [3 Kg]."..."

THEMA RHEMA bei Pragmatik

Subjekt |Argument 1 | 1.Aktant Prädikat"David ... ...schlägt [Goliat]"

Beschriebenes | Signifikatum Beschreibendes | Signifikant | Adjunkt(ion)

"der Ring, ... ...ein glühender""Mozart, der Komponist"

Prädikation | Proposition

Abfolge von ÄEen: Was ist im zweiten Satz gegeben, bekannt, also =A?Was ist dann B?

"Es kamen Künstler Kirgisiens,

"dann kamen Künstler Turkmeniens."

Gleiches Prinzip der Bedeutungskonstruktion bei unterschiedlichenSpracheinheiten:

Semem-Gruppe "der junge Beethoven" S

Satz "Beethoven war jung" 140 S

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ÄE-Zusammenhang |"Beethoven,| als er jung war, P-TG

| ..."

TGE-Zusammenhang ( Szenenabfolge) P-TG

TLE-Zusammenhang (Abfolge thematischer Stränge) P-TL

Aufgaben für die Modellierung:

Bei jeder Bedeutungsbeschreibung wird die Ebene zu bestimmen sein,für die die Beschreibung gelten soll.

Mit der Ebenenfestlegung ist der Typ von Einzelbedeutungenvorbestimmt, mit dem gearbeitet werden soll.

Es lassen sich nun die Einzel Bedeutung1 bzw. 2 bestimmen.

Immer ist die Relation zu bestimmen, die zwischen beiden angenommenwird. Die Relation wird durch einen Terminologie-Pfad wiedergegeben.

Hierarchisierung:

Bottom-up lassen sich damit von kleinsten Bedeutungseinheiten herbeginnend immer größere Bedeutungskomplexe zusammenbauen, dieletztlich enden beim Gesamttext: er ist eine Form von Aussage (=B)in Bezug auf eine vorauszusetzende(historische/geistesgeschichtliche) Situation (=A). Welcher Art dieAussage ist, muss sich zeigen (liegt oft im Bereich der Modalitäten:Wertung, Willensimpuls, usw.).

"the hat" Bedeutungseinheit (=A), bestehend aus einem FW und einersemantisch Konstitutiven Bedeutung. Das FW steuertNumerus/Determinations-Info bei.

"of" Relationsanzeiger, fassbar als separates Wort.Relationen können auch durch andere Mechanismen

140 In der Semantik wird hier dann mit der Formel f(a,b) gearbeitet.Aber dieses Muster des Aufbaus von Bedeutungskomplexität istnicht auf den Kern eines Satzes beschränkt.

realisiert werden: z.B. Genitiv, gleiche FW ("derBürgermeister, der Heini"), bloße Nebeneinanderstellung("das blaue Band"). Relationen können auch nur durchInterpretation erkennbar sein, ohne benennbaren äußerenAnzeiger. Es ist also zu unterscheiden zwischen einersemantisch angenommenen Relation (wird durchTerminologie-Pfad beschrieben) und derenausdruckssyntaktischen Verwirklichung.

"the queen" Bedeutungseinheit (=B). Durch "of" rückt "queen" in dieuntergeordnete Rolle des Signifikanten , der dasübergeordnete Signifikatum beschreibt.

"is" Relationsanzeiger. Das Hilfszeitwort impliziert dieInformation "Numerus-Singular-KT". Es verlangt eineBedeutungseinheit (=A), die hierzu kompatibel ist (ein"ich" wäre es nicht). Als Kandidat hierfür kommt von denbeiden vorhergegangenen Nomen nur "hat" in Frage, da"queen" eine nachgeordnete beschreibende Rolle(Adjunktion) hat.

"pink" Bedeutungseinheit (=B), impliziert die Information"Numerus-Singular", passt insofern zur intendiertenRelation. Die Farbinformation ist der benötigte zweiteInhalt; nur so kann eine gültige Relation zustandekommen: Sinneinheit nun auf Satzebene (=ÄE)

"therefore" wird als iFW geführt ( independent function word ). D.h.es wird eine Relation angezeigt. Sie kann man auch schoncharakterisieren (Code-Initiative...kausal). Im Rahmendieser Relation nimmt die ganze ÄE offenbar die PositionBedeutungseinheit (=B) ein. Es bleibt aber offen, wovon(=Bedeutungseinheit (=A)) die Begründungsaussage gemachtwird.

Es liegt eine angezeigte, aber informationsmäßig noch "ungesättigte"Relation vor. Derartige Zwischenerkenntnisse erzwingen/berechtigen,die Analyse auf einer nächsten Analyse-Ebene fortzuführen. Hier: Dieim Rahmen des Satzes ( Semantik) nicht beschaffbare Information(Bedeutungseinheit (=A)) wird bei der Einbeziehung der benachbartenÄEen ( Pragmatik: Textgrammatik) zu gewinnen sein.

Folgerung für Bedeutungsbeschreibung:

- Indizien der Ausdrucksseite beachten (Konjugation, Deklination,Position, Parallelisierungen, ) und ausreichend erläutern;

- was aber modelliert wird, sind die Befunde der Bedeutungsseite(abhängig von der jeweiligen Beschreibungsebene):

Was ist BedeutungseinheitA? (Von der etwas gesagt wird)

Was ist BedeutungseinheitB? (Neu hinzukommendeInformation)

Was ist die Relation zwischen A|B? (Terminologie-Pfad)

konstitutive Bedeutung - R - konstitutive Bedeutung

Anders gesagt: Gibt es einen Anzeiger für "R", einen Kandidaten füreine "konstitutive Bedeutung", dann muss auf der nächsten Ebene nachder zweiten "konstitutiven Bedeutung" gesucht werden.(Sonderproblem: Existenzaussagen).

Die Verteilung der 3 Elemente kann in normalen Sätzenunterschiedlich sein - was kein Problem der Bedeutungsbeschreibungist, nur eines der einzelsprachlichen Realisierung:

Ausdruck1 Ausdruck

2

1

2

"Der-Ochse säuft"

BedeutungA Relation|BedeutungB<<OCHSE/def.sg.>> HANDLUNG|<<SAUFEN>>

Ausdruck1 Ausdruck

2 Ausdruck

3

1

2

3

"Der-Stier ist wild"BedeutungA Relation BedeutungB<<STIER/def.sg>> EIGENSCHAFT <<WILD>>

Ausdruck1 Ausdruck

2

1

2

"Der-Stein liegt"BedeutungA Relation|BedeutungB<<STEIN/def.sg>> BEFINDEN|<<LIEGEN>>

Mit "Relation" ist zweierlei gemeint: (a) zwischen zweiBedeutungseinheiten gibt es eine Reaktion, eine Beziehung. (b)Welcher Art die Beziehung ist, wird in abstrakter Form angedeutet -ohne schon die spezifische Einzelbedeutung zu erfassen (EIGENSCHAFT

<<SCHWARZ>>). Ein innersprachlicher Mechanismus wird beschrieben.

Nicht gemeint ist eine quasi außersprachliche Erwägung. D.h. im Fallvon "Er biss die Spitze der Birne ab" besteht zwischen "Er" und"ABBEISSEN" eine Relation (HANDLUNG), obwohl "ABBEISSEN"bedeutungsmäßig das Gegenteil aussagt: Zerstörung einer bislangbestehenden Relation.

Erläuterung:

the hat of the queen is pink therefore

Bei der Satz beschreibung/Semantik interessiert

MU1 ( the hat [mit Zusatzbestimmungen]) als 1. Aktant =

BedeutungseinheitA auf Satzebene

ist zugleich Signifikatum oberster Ordnung =BedeutungseinheitA auf Adjunktionsebene

MU2 ( of the queen wird auf Satz ebene übergangen (ist

BedeutungseinheitB auf Adjunktionsebene)

MU3 ( pink [mit Zusatzbestimmungen]) ist BedeutungseinheitB auf

Satzebene)

Appendix 11:

Sprecherwechsel-Steuerungen (Beispiele)

A : Anfangen wollen zu redenW : Weiterreden wollenE : Enden wollen zu redenN : Nicht reden wollenI : aktueller (bzw. potentieller) Sprecher der KommunikationII : Partner des aktuellen Sprechers

AI : "Ich will jetzt zu Wort kommen" : "da" (am Redebeginn) : "seht" : "genug" (=EII) kommen, sich verneigen und sich wieder aufrichten

WI : "Ich bin am Reden und würde gerne noch fortfahren" : "(und) da" (in der Rede) : "und jetzt" : "jetzt aber" : "folgendermaßen" (und weitere Kataphern) : Themasetzung: "was X betrifft..." : Redeeinleitung in der Rede : "hört mir gut zu!" : "tatsächlich"

EI : "ich komme mit meiner Rede zum Schluß" : "genau so ist es gewesen" : Bekräftigung/Schwur : aggressiv-aufgeladene Frage : den Ort der Kommunikation verlassen

NI : "ich beabsichtige nicht, das Wort zu ergreifen" : sich verneigen (und Befehl/Auftrag erwarten) : Gefühlsreaktionen/Gesten der Demotivierung

AII: "Du sollst jetzt zu Wort kommen" : Fragen : phatische Bestätigungen, daß man empfangsbereit ist ("ja",

"Mhm") : gestisches Signal, daß man empfangsbereit ist (Kopfnicken,

Blickkontakt, Hände an Ohrmuschel) : dislokatives Signal, daß man empfangsbereit ist (Näherrücken) : "sag mir doch ..." /jegliche Aufforderung zu einer

Redehandlung : Provokation des KP (aggressiv oder allzu höflich)

WII: "Du kannst mit deiner Rede fortfahren" : Näherkommen als Aufforderung an den KP : Bestätigungen durch Affirmation: "ja!" (verbal/gestisch)

EII: "Hör jetzt endlich auf zu reden" : aggressive Gegenfragen : häufiger Widerspruch "nein!" (verbal/gestisch) : verbal oder gestisch wird der KP unterbrochen : Rezipient entfernt sich

NII: "du sollst in nächster Zeit nicht zu Wort kommen" : Wortmeldung wird ignoriert : Sich-Abwenden des aktuellen Sprechers

Dialog-thematische Steuerungen

Ist im Rahmen eines Dialogs eine Antwort

- responsiv (ausreichende Antwort)

- teil-responsiv (Teilantwort)

- non-responsiv (nicht zur Frage passend)?

Appendix 12:

Beispiel: Isotopien: |FAMILIE| + |SAUBERKEIT| |AGGRESSION|

PLANKENHORN, G: AWA! Kleine Sprengsätze und andere Gedichte. o.J.Tübingen. 2. Aufl.

Stichwort: Metapher, Isotopie

Erziehung I

Herr Müller polierd saen Daemler em HofFrau Müller polierd ihr Gschirr en dr KicheEvi Müller polierd ihr Barbipippleon Franz Müller polierdama Nochberskend d Fräss.

Ja, Bua h od er dr oene gwischd ?Noe Babba, i hann em vorher oene budzd !Warsch schneller !Ha j o Babba, d o h ods ganz gschdaubd !Ja, n o h oscham richdich da Kobf gwäscha ?Ha j o Babba, deam hanne gschwendda Roschd raa do !Ja, on n o h oscham glei nomml oene budzd ?Ha j o Babba, glei nomml oene gwischd,dia h od sich gwäscha !on n oh hannem no an reachda Sch oedel z oga !Hoscham so a richdiche Abreibung verpassd ?Ha j o Babba, dem hanne so oene bädschd wiaDu drledschd dr Muader oene gäbba h osch.

Ha sauber Bua,muasch de emmer wehra,lass dr blos nix gfalla.Aus Dir wird m ol was !

Erläuterung:

Thema - Rhema

zu: vprag6.55

aus: BRINKER, K, Linguistische Textanalyse. Eine Einführung inGrundbegriffe und Methoden. Berlin 21988.

(44f) In textanalytischer Hinsicht ist besonders die von V.Mathesius (1929) begründete Thema-Rhema-Gliederung der Prager Schule(auch "Funktionale Satzperspektive" genannt) bekannt geworden. Nachdieser Konzeption läßt sich ein Satz von seinem "Mitteilungswert"her gesehen in zwei Teile gliedern, in das "Thema" als den"Ausgangspunkt der Aussage" und das "Rhema" als den "Kern derAussage".

Dieser zunächst primär satzbezogene Ansatz wurde dann in den 60erJahren von F. Dane s für die semantische Analyse der Textstruktur

fruchtbar zu machen versucht. Unter "Thema" versteht Dane s das,worüber etwas mitgeteilt wird; unter kontextuellem Aspekt handelt essich dabei um die Information, die bekannt, vorgegeben, aufgrund derSituation erschließbar oder vom Rezipienten aufgrund seinesVorwissens bzw. seiner Weltkenntnis identifizierbar ist. Als "Rhema"bestimmt er das, was über das Thema mitgeteilt wird; das Rhemabezeichnet also - kontextuell gesehen - die neue, nicht vorhererwähnte und nicht aus dem Text- bzw. Situationszusammenhangableitbare Information. Dane s gibt nun die satzbezogene Orientierunginsofern auf, als er die Textstruktur als "eine Sequenz von Themen"darstellt. "Die eigentliche thematische Struktur des Textesbesteht... in der Verkettung und Konnexität der Themen, in ihrenWechselbeziehungen und ihrer Hierarchie, in den Beziehungen zu denTextabschnitten und zum Textganzen, sowie zur Situation." Diesenganzen Komplex von thematischen Relationen im Text nennt er die"thematische Progression", sie stellt das "Gerüst des Textaufbaus"dar. Dane s unterscheidet fünf Typen von thematischen Progressionen....

(46) Problematisch ist bei diesem Ansatz bereits die Basis, nämlichdie Abgrenzung von Thema und Rhema, da es an zureichenden Verfahrenmangelt, sie intersubjektiv überprüfbar zu machen. Dane s nennt als"objektives Kriterium" für die Zuordnung der einzelnen Satzteile zuThema und Rhema die "Ergänzungsfrage"; mit ihr werde nach dem Rhemader Aussage gefragt.Beispiel:Er bekam das Buch von einem Kollegen. - Von wem bekam er das Buch?Die Ergänzung von einem Kollegen bildet nach Dane s das Rhema,während der Rest der Aussage das Thema darstellt. Es sind aber auchandere Fragen möglich, z.B. was bekam er von einem Kollegen? Dannwäre das Buch das Rhema.

Es wird deutlich, daß das Kriterium der Ergänzungsfragen keinesfallsals eine befriedigende Lösung des Abgrenzungsproblems betrachtetwerden kann. So kommen auch E. Gülich und W. Raible, die dasThema-Rhema-Konzept auf den Text, "Herrn K.s Lieblingstier"anzuwenden versuchen, zu dem Ergebnis: "Das Fehlen eindeutiger undnachvollziehbarer Definitionskriterien läßt es häufig als schwierigerscheinen, die Thema-Rhema-Strukturierung auszumachen".

Begriffe:

Thema/Rhema/Topik/Fokus

aus: TOTH, A, Entwurf einer Semiotisch-Relationalen GrammatikTübingen 1997: Stauffenburg

(89ff) Im folgenden werden weitere Beispiele für pragmatischeAnomalien anhand von Verstößen gegen Beschränkungen bei Themata,Topiks, Foki, Comments und Settings aufgezeigt.

1. Thema und Topik: Lakoff (1972) wies darauf hin, daß bei einem auseinem Teilsatz und einem Folgesatz bestehenden Satz ein"Topik-Konflikt" entstehen kann, sofern das im Teilsatz (z.B. mitconcern oder about ) eingeführte Thema nicht mit dem Topik, desFolgesatzes identisch ist; vgl. die folgenden Belege:

(31) (a) ?* About sonatas, this violin is easy to play them on.(b) ?* Concerning this violin, sonatas are easy to play on it.

"Diese Sätze sind nur für diejenigen Sprecher wohlgeformt, die mehrals ein Topic in solchen Sätzen zulassen" (Lakoff 1972: 346).

2. Comment: Neben topikalen Anomalien können scherzhaft auch Sätzeund Texte mit anomalen Comments erzeugt werden. In den folgendenBelegen entstehen die Anomalien dadurch, daß die im vorangehendenText aufgebaute Erwartungshaltung des Hörers im Comment zerstörtwird:

(32) No, wie wir so a halbe Stund drinsitzen, auf einmal - geht snoch nicht an. (Valentin 1990: 27)

(33) [Ritter Unkenstein hat soeben erfahren, daß sein Recke Heinrichden toten Ritter Rodenstein als Geist gesehen hat:]Heinrich: Ihr schicktet mich vor ein paar Tagen in den

Keller, um Wein zu holen. Es war nachts zwölf Uhr.Ich ging die Kellertreppe hinabi, und als ichguckt zur Tür hinein, da huben dort imMondenschein Gespenster, schrecklich anzusehn - soungefähr a Stuckera zehn. Ich schlich mich durchden langen Gang - da hörte ich ein Gewimmer - ichging dem Gewimmer entgegen, und wer stand vor mir...

Unkenstein mit starren Augen: Rodenstein!Heinrich: Nein - ein großes Weinfaß!Unkenstein: Ach so. Weiter, weiter.Heinrich: Der Wind heulte in den Gedärmen, ah, Gemächern,

wollt ich sagen, im Burghof heulte der Hund, dahörte ich auf einmal einige Schritte gehen - ichstoppte meine Gebeine, und wer steht vor mir ...

Unkenstein: Ritter Rodenstein!Heinrich: Nein - wieder ein Weinfaß.Unkenstein: Ach leck mich doch jetzt bald am Arsch mit deinen

Weinfässern!Heinrich: Da plötzlich bog ich um die Ecke und ging

schnurstracks weiter, und in einem mattenKerzenschimmer - wer stand vor mir?

Unkenstein: Wieder ein Weinfaß?Heinrich: Nein - der Rodenstein! (Valentin 1990: 571f)

Ein interessanter Fall der Verwechslung von Topik und Comment liegtim folgenden Diskursausschnitt vor; Knecht Michl interpretiert eineals Comment, d.h. neue Information formulierte Anweisung des Bauernals topikale, d.h. alte, in seinem Diskursregister gespeicherteInformation:

(34) Bichelbauer zu seinem Knecht Michl: Spann schnell ein und fahrmit n Leiterwagn zum Berger Pauli nach Olchingnüber und hol die altn Kistn, die er mir no netzruckgebn hat!

Michl: Kistn soll i hoin - ja, da woaß ja i no gar nixdavo.

Bauer: Des glaub i scho, daß du da no nix davo woaßt -drum sag i dir s ja. (Valentin 1990: 224)

3. Setting: Das Gedicht (36), "Ein politischer Vers" betitelt, istdeshalb anomal, weil es nur Settings, aber weder Topiks nochComments enthält; vgl. den Kontrast zwischen (35) und (36):

(35) (a) An einem Sommermorgen, da nimm den Wanderstab. (1 Setting +Comment)

(b) Vor der Kaserne, vor dem großen Tor, stand eine Latern undsteht sie noch davor. (2 Settings + Comment)

(36) In Rußland und in Großbritannien,In Frankreich und in der Türkei,In Serbien, Dänemark und Schweden,In China und der Mongolei,In Saloniki und Hawaii. (Valentin 1990: 168) ...

(92) 4. Topik und Fokus: Von den folgenden beiden Sätzen:

(39) (a) John and only John killed Mary.(b) John and only John deserves the award.

ist (39b), nicht aber (39a) ambig in bezug auf die topikale undfokale Interpretation von "John"; "John" in (39a) kann nur Fokussein. Nach Kuno (1976: 428) kommt dieser Unterschied besonders klarzum Vorschein, wenn man die entsprechenden NP s einer "Left TopicDislocation" unterzieht:

(40) (a) *John, he and only he kissed Mary.(b) John, he and only he deserves the award.

Ebensowenig wie fokale Elemente in Topik-Position erscheinen können,ist es möglich, sie zu relativisieren, während dies für Topikswenigstens unter Umständen möglich ist:

(41) (a) *The man who and only who killed Mary was left out from thelist of suspects.

(b) (?) The man who and only who deserves the award has beenleft out from the list of nominees.

Letztere Feststellungen werden auch bestätigt durch die Unmöglickeitder Relativisierung von Subjekten in topiklosen Sätzen (Kuno 1976:428):

(42) (a) There came John, tagging along after Mary.(b) *The man who there came, tagging along Mary was John.

(43) (a) Then out of the bushes jumped John.(b) *The man who out of the bushes jumped was John.

Appendix 13:

"Pragmatische Wortarten" - doppelte kritische Analyse

Ein Nomen/Substantiv , das - so der naive Eindruck - ein Ding, einObjekt der Außenwelt zu bezeichnen scheint, etwas, das viele alswahrnehmbar und abgrenzbar charakterisieren würden, wird befragt:

1. Liegt ein Konkretum , ein Ding der Außenwelt vor (= E1, =Entität erster Ordnung)? - Oder handelt es sich nicht vieleher um die Abstraktion eines Zustands, eines Prozesses,einer Handlung (= E2, = Entität zweiter Ordnung), also vonetwas, was in Verbindung mit Dingen vorkommt, aber selbstkein Ding ist? Man denke hierbei an Infinitive, anBedeutungen, die von Prädikaten abgeleitet sind. - Oderliegt ein formaler Begriff, eine "ewige" Wahrheit vor (= E3,= Entität dritter Ordnung), also höchste Abstraktionsstufe?Letzteres sind meist Nominalisierungen vonCodes/Modalitäts-Kategorien.

2. Unabhängig von (1) können die jeweiligen Bedeutungen anhandder Basiskategorien bestimmt werden.

Pragmatische Wortart

Abstraktionsgrad Pfad bei Basiskategorien(E1,

E2,E3)

vprag3.17

"Pragmatische Wortarten" - Beispiele

ETWAS [LEXPRAG] E3EIN-KNABE [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom] E1GARBE [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom] E1EIN-MANN [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom] E1BRUNNEN [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom] E1DER-LEIBROCK [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom] E1THRON [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom] E1DIE-GESAMTHEIT [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-quant] E3EINE-KARAWANE [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-quant] E1ERSTERE [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-quant] E1ÜBERFLUSS [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-quant] E3VERWANDTSCHAFT [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-quant] E1

DIE-HERDEN [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-quant] E1VOLK [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-quant] E1WASSER [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-qualit] E1BROT [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-qualit] E1TRAGAKANT [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-qualit] E1SILBER [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-qualit] E1GESTALT [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-qualit] E1DIE-DÜRREN [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-qualit] E1LAND [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-qualit] E1EIN-TOTER [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-autonom-qualit] E1AUGEN [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Spezif] E1BLUT [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Spezif] E1HAND [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Spezif] E1FLEISCH [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Spezif] E1SEITE [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Spezif] E3GESICHTER [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Spezif] E1DER-MUND [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Spezif] E1JOSEF [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Ident] E1ISRAEL [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Ident] E1SICHEM [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Ident] E1DAS-KLEINVIEH [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Klass] E1EIN-TIER [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Klass] E1ISMAELITER [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Klass] E1VOGELSCHAR [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Klass] E1VOLK [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Klass] E1NICHT-MARSCHFÄHIGE [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Klass] E1VIEHZUCHT [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Klass] E1BRÜDER [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Zuordn] E1VATER [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Zuordn] E1DER-MEISTER [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Zuordn] E1KNECHTE [LEXPRAG-Präd-stat-relat-Pertinenz-Zuordn] E1REDE/SACHE [LEXPRAG-Präd-dynamisch] E3DAS-LEBEN [LEXPRAG-Präd-dynamisch] E3BESCHÄFTIGUNG [LEXPRAG-Präd-dynamisch-initiativ] E3EINBALSAMIEREN [LEXPRAG-Präd-dynamisch-initiativ] E2TUN [LEXPRAG-Präd-dynamisch-initiativ] E2STERBEN [LEXPRAG-Präd-dynamisch-fientisch] E2NICHT-EXISTENZ [LEXPRAG-Präd] E3EXISTENZ [LEXPRAG-Präd] E3BINDENDE [LEXPRAG-Akt-1. Aktant-undiff] E1EINE-KOMMENDE [LEXPRAG-Akt-1. Aktant-undiff] E1TRAGENDE [LEXPRAG-Akt-1. Aktant-undiff] E1GEHENDE [LEXPRAG-Akt-1. Aktant-undiff] E1TUENDE [LEXPRAG-Akt-1. Aktant-undiff] E1MUNDSCHENKEN [LEXPRAG-Akt-1. Aktant-undiff] E1BÄCKER [LEXPRAG-Akt-1. Aktant-undiff] E1EIN-LEBENDER [LEXPRAG-Akt-1. Aktant-undiff] E1EIN-STERBENDER [LEXPRAG-Akt-1. Aktant-undiff] E1GEFANGENE [LEXPRAG-Akt-2. Aktant-undifferenziert] E1STIMME [LEXPRAG-Illok-perform] E1WEINEN [LEXPRAG-Illok-perform-primär-Kundg-expressiv] E2EIN-TRAUM [LEXPRAG-Codes] E3GEIST [LEXPRAG-Codes] E3WEISER [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-stat-wissend] E1DIE-GEWOHNHEIT [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-stat-wissend-cogn] E3DAS-WISSEN [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-stat-wissend-cogn] E3KONSENS [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-stat-wissend-cogn] E3DER-VERLASS [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-stat-wissend-credit] E3EIN-UMHERIRRENDER [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-stat-nicht] E1

EIN-HÜTER [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn] E1WEIDENDE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn] E1KAUFLEUTE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn] E1ERWERB [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn] E1EIN-GEDENKENDER [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-emiss] E1ÜBERLEGUNG [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-emiss] E3VERNUNFT [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-emiss] E3HÖREN [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-recept-perc] E2SEHENDE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-recept-perc] E1SEHEN [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-recept-perc] E2EIN-SUCHENDER [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-recept-perc-init] E1GEWAHRSAM [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-recept-perc-init] E3SPIONIERENDE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-recept-perc-init] E1AUSSEHEN [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-emiss] E3DIE-BEDEUTUNG [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-emiss] E3EIN-DEUTER [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-emiss] E1EIN-DEUTEN [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-emiss] E2DIE-DEUTUNG [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-emiss] E3WORT [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-emiss] E1DAS-SICH-ZU-ERKENNEN-GEBEN [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-emiss] E2MELDUNG [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-emiss-dict] E3REDENDE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-emiss-dict] E1REDEN [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-emiss-dict] E2DIE-WORTE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Epist-dyn-emiss-dict] E1HOFFNUNG [LEXPRAG-Codes-Imag-prosp-assoziat] E3FUTTER [LEXPRAG-Codes-Imag-prosp-argument-potential-final] E1HERBERGE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Imag-prosp-argument-potential-final] E1GESCHENK [LEXPRAG-Codes-Imag-prosp-argument-potential-final] E1SCHLACHTVIEH [LEXPRAG-Codes-Imag-prosp-argument-potential-final] E1PROVIANT [LEXPRAG-Codes-Imag-prosp-argument-potential-final] E1AUSSAAT [LEXPRAG-Codes-Imag-prosp-argument-potential-final] E1WILLE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Init-subj] E3ARBEIT [LEXPRAG-Codes-Init-subj-init-kaus-imper] E3EIN-HERRSCHENDER [LEXPRAG-Codes-Init-subj-init-kaus-imper] E1ERMUNTERUNG [LEXPRAG-Codes-Init-subj-init-kaus-juss] E3EINSCHLIESSUNG [LEXPRAG-Codes-Init-subj-recus-imped-prohib] E3SCHUTZWACHE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Ermögl-dynamisch-promotiv] E1EIN-GASTMAHL [LEXPRAG-Codes-Ermögl-dynamisch-promotiv] E3AM-LEBEN-ERHALTEN [LEXPRAG-Codes-Ermögl-dynamisch-promotiv] E3STIMMUNG [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat] E3VERDROSSENE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-dysphorisch] E1SCHLECHTE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-dysphorisch] E1HUNGERSNOT [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-dysphorisch] E3DEN-HUNGER [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-dysphorisch] E3TRAUER [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-dysphorisch] E3UNMUT [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-dysphorisch] E3AGGRESSION [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-dysphorisch] E3WOHLBEFINDEN [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-euphorisch] E3GEFALLEN [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-euphorisch] E3WOHLWOLLEN [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-euphorisch] E3(ER-)LÖSUNG [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-euphorisch] E3SCHÖNE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-euphorisch] E1WOHLBEFINDEN [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-euphorisch] E3ERBARMEN [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-euphorisch] E3DER-BESTEN-TEIL [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-euphorisch] E3DAS-GUTE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-stat-euphorisch] E3ÄRZTE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-dynam-Anf-dys-Ziel-eu-init] E1VERFEHLUNG [LEXPRAG-Codes-Axiol-dynam-Anf-ind-Ziel-dys-init] E3DER-ANFANG [LEXPRAG-Codes-Stadium-part-ingress] E3

ÜBERGANGSPHASE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Stadium-part-interrupt] E3EIN-GEWINN [LEXPRAG-Codes-Stadium-part-result] E3DAS-ENDE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Stadium-part-result] E3LÖSUNG [LEXPRAG-Codes-Stadium-part-result] E3DIE-BLÖSSE [LEXPRAG-Codes-Stadium-part-result] E3DER-VERLAUF [LEXPRAG-Codes-Stadium-total-semelf-durat] E3DER(-BESTE)-ERTRAG [LEXPRAG-Codes-Stadium-Intens-stat-forte] E3FELD [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-lokat-kont] E1DIE-EBENE [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-lokat-kont] E1DAS-LAND [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-lokat-kont] E1STEHENDE [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-lokat-kont-adess] E1DRAUSSEN [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-lokat-kont-adess-relat] E3DAS-UFER [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-lokat-kont-adess-relat] E1BEISEIN [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-lokat-kont-adess-relat-davor] E2GESTOHLEN [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-dislok-separativ] E2AUSLEERENDE [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-dislok-separativ-elativ] E1EIN-ESSENDER [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-dislok-adventiv-illativ] E1EINE-FRESSENDE [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-dislok-adventiv-illativ] E1DAS-KOMMEN [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-dislok-adventiv-allativ] E2KOMMENDEN [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-dislok-adventiv-allativ] E1TREFFENDEN [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-dislok-adventiv-allativ] E1ERTRÄGNISSE [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-dislok-adventiv-allativ] E3ERHEBEN [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-dislok-adventiv-allativ-up] E2HERAUFKOMMENDE [LEXPRAG-Deix-Topol-dislok-adventiv-allativ-up] E1TAG [LEXPRAG-Deix-Chron-zeitgeb-kont-abs] E1EINE\NACHT [LEXPRAG-Deix-Chron-zeitgeb-kont-abs] E1DER-MORGEN [LEXPRAG-Deix-Chron-zeitgeb-kont-abs] E1DAS-ALTER [LEXPRAG-Deix-Chron-zeitgeb-kont-abs-dat-indef] E3JUGEND [LEXPRAG-Deix-Chron-zeitgeb-kont-abs-dat-indef] E3

Appendix 14:

Adjunktionen: Beginn des Römerbriefs

kann hier nicht abgedruckt werden. Hängt stattdessen im Netz:

http://www-ct.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/daten/roem.ps

Es geht um den kursorischen Eindruck, dass eine gegebene nominaleInformation durch unterschiedliche Typen von Adjunktionen erweitertwerden kann.

Adjunktionen können weiter verkettet und verschachtelt sein, so dassu.U. an einer gegebenen Information, die dann auch relevant ist fürdie nächst höhere Ebene (Bestimmung der Satz glieder), ein ganzerRattenschwanz zusätzlicher Beschreibungen hängt.

Die Zusatzbeschreibungen können ihrerseits nominal ( das blaue Band )ausgeführt sein, oder selbst wieder satzhaft (Relativsätze).

Die Semantik befasst sich nur mit einer einzelnen ÄE, kann dort alsonur die nominalen Adjunktionen erfassen.

Die Textgrammatik beschäftigt sich mit dem Zusammenhang mehrererÄEen, kann daher auch sagen, dass eine ganze ÄE beschreibendeFunktion hat bezüglich eines zuvor in einer anderen ÄE genanntenNomens.

Daher umfasst die Tabelle zum Römerbrief Auswertungen aufsemantischer und textgrammatischer Ebene.

Appendix 15:

Tunwörter

zu: vsem5.11

aus: Arbeitsmaterialien für das zweite Schuljahr (Grundschule)

erzählen sie erzählt

heißen er heißt

füttern ich füttere

brauchen er braucht

schlafen er schläft

spielen ich spiele

bürsten ich bürste

baden ich bade

[" Tunwort" dient der Volksverdummung, etwa mit der Frage: "Was hastdu getan?" - "Ich habe geschlafen". Bei semantischer Reflexionsollte man darauf verzichten und stattdessen den " Handlungs "-Begriffbenutzen: Dabei geht es um eine Veränderung, die einemverantwortlichen Willen zugerechnet werden kann. Daneben gibt esVeränderungen, die nicht-willensgesteuert ablaufen: Prozess =fientisch ]

TG: "Modalverben"

zu: vprag2.1473069EPISTEMOLOGIE <<FRAGEN>>070statisch071-wissend072--cognitiv <<DENKEN>> <<REFLEKTIEREN>> <<SEIN-WIE>>073--creditiv <<GLAUBEN>> <<SICHER-SEIN>> <<ÜBERZEUGT-SEIN>>074-nicht-wissend075--dubitativ <<ZWEIFELN>>076--ignorativ <<VERGESSEN-HABEN>>077dynamisch <<VERKAUFEN>> <<GEDENKEN>>078-receptiv <<HÖREN>>079--perceptiv <<HINHÖREN>> <<NACHSCHAUEN>> <<BEDIENEN>>080---initiativ <<SUCHEN>> <<AUSWÄHLEN>> <<AUSSPIONIEREN>>081---fientisch <<FINDEN>> <<ERWACHEN>>082--neglectiv <<SICH-BERAUSCHEN>>083---initiativ <<WEGSCHAUEN>> <<WEGHÖREN>>084---fientisch <<ÜBERSEHEN(unabsichtl.)>>085-emissiv <<NACHDENKEN>> <<ÜBERLEGEN>> 141

086--dictiv <<ERZÄHLEN>> <<SPRECHEN>> <<RUFEN>> <<SCHWÖREN>><<SCHREIBEN>>142

141 i.S.v. Informationsverarbeitung, die noch kein <<PLANEN>> usw.ist (vgl. [Code IMAGINATION].

142 = Mitteilungsakte jeglicher Art, also nicht nur phonetisch-ver-bal.

087--konzessiv <<EINRÄUMEN>> <<ZUGESTEHEN>>088IMAGINATION089retrospectiv090-optativ <<BEDAUERN>>091-hypothetisch <<ANNEHMEN>>092--potential <<GEDANKLICH-DURCHSPIELEN>>093--irreal094---konditional095prospectiv096-assoziativ <<HOFFEN>> <<ERTRÄUMEN>> <<WÜNSCHEN>>097-argumentativ <<ANNEHMEN>> <<PLANEN>>098--potential <<KONSTRUIEREN>> <<RECHNEN>> 143 <<DEDUZIEREN>>099---final <<KONDITIONIEREN>> 144

100--irreal <<(ZUSAMMEN)PHANTASIEREN>> 145

101---konditional102INITIATIVE103subjektiv104-initiativ <<SICH-VERSCHWÖREN>>105--voluntativ <<VERLANGEN>>106---decretiv <<SICH-ENTSCHLIESSEN>>107---delectativ <<LUST-HABEN>>108--kausativ <<SCHICKEN>> <<ERREGEN>>109---imperativ <<HERRSCHEN>> <<BEFEHLEN>>110---jussiv <<AUFFORDERN>> <<RATEN>>111-recusativ112--reiectiv <<SICH-WEIGERN>> <<ZURÜCKHALTEN>> <<SICH-BEZÄHMEN>>

<<SICH-BEHERRSCHEN>>113--impeditiv <<VERHINDERN>>114---prohibitiv <<VERBIETEN>>115---vetitiv <<WARNEN>> <<ABRATEN>>116objektiv117-kausal118ERMÖGLICHUNG119statisch120-possibile <<SICHTBAR-SEIN>>121-impossibile <<NICHT-KÖNNEN>>122dynamisch123-promotiv <<ÖFFNEN>> <<VERSORGEN>> <<SICH-BELEBEN>>124--fient125--initiat126-turbativ <<BEHINDERN>>127--fient128--initiat129AXIOLOGIE130statisch <<WEINEN>>131-dysphorisch <<EIFERSÜCHTIG-SEIN>> <<SICH-VERSCHWÖREN>>

<<FLIEHEN>> <<ZORNIG-SEIN>> <<SICH-FÜRCHTEN>><<ERSCHROCKEN-SEIN>> <<RÄCHEN>>

132-indifferent133-euphorisch <<LIEBEN>> <<GUTGEHEN>> <<STARK-SEIN>>134dynamisch135-A n f a n g136--dysphorisch <<TRÖSTEN>>

143 i.S.v. <<ALS SICHER ANNEHMEN>>.144 Vgl. die Pawlowschen Hunde werden konditioniert: beim späteren

Läuten der Glocke sollen/werden sie in einer Verfassung sein,daß das Ziel = Speichelfluß realisiert wird.

145 i.S.v. "Utopie aufstellen".

137--indiffer138--euphorisch <<VERSPOTTEN>> <<VERARMEN>>139--unbekannt140---fientisch <<VERARMEN>>141---initiativ <<TRÖSTEN>> <<VERSPOTTEN>>142-Z i e l143--dysphorisch <<VERSPOTTEN>> <<VERARMEN>>144--indiffer145--euphorisch <<TRÖSTEN>>146--unbekannt147---fientisch148---initiativ149ASPEKTE150S t a d i u m151totaliter152-semelfaktiv153-punktuell154--durativ <<ANDAUERN>> <<SICH-HINZIEHEN>>155--iterativ <<WIEDERHOLEN>>156partitiv157-ingressiv <<BEGINNEN>>158-resultativ <<(SICH)-VOLLENDEN>> <<AUFBRAUCHEN>>

<<VOLLZÄHLIG-SEIN/WERDEN>>159-interruptiv <<UMSCHALTEN>> <<STOCKEN>> <<INNEHALTEN>>160-continuativ <<REBOOT>>161I n t e n s i t ä t162statisch163-forte <<EILEN>> 146

164-piano <<SCHWACH-SEIN>>165dynamisch166-crescendo <<STEIGERN>>167-decrescendo <<DÄMPFEN>> S3

TG: VERBEN (besser: SEMEME) DER TOPOLOGIE/CHRONOLOGIE

zu: vprag2.153

001TOPOLOGIE002ortlos003Leerstelle004Problemfall005lokativ006-ubiquitär007-kontingent008--inessiv009---vertik010----supra011----inter012----infra013---relat014----after015----between016----ahead017--adessiv <<ANGEBUNDEN-SEIN>> <<STEHEN>> <<WOHNEN>>018---vertik <<STEHENBLEIBEN>>019----supra020----inter

146 Wenn i.S.v. <<ORTSBEWEGUNG>>, dann liegt nur ein "aspektuellerCharakter" vor.

021----infra022---relat023----after024----between025----ahead026dislokativ <<WERFEN>> <<BEWEGEN>> <<WECHSELN>>027-separativ <<STEHLEN>> 147

028--elat <<HINAUSGEHEN>> <<AUSGEHEN>> <<HERAUSHOLEN>>029---vertik030----up <<HERAUFHOLEN>>031----down032--ablat <<SCHICKEN>> <<SENDEN>> 148 <<ZURÜCKLASSEN>> <<WEGRAFFEN>>

<<(WEG)NEHMEN>>033---vertik034----up <<AUFHEBEN>> <<WEGTRAGEN>>035----down036-prolativ <<GEHEN>> <<VORBEIKOMMEN>037--vertik038---up039---down040--relat041---after042---between043---ahead044-adventiv <<EINSETZEN>> <<GELANGEN>> <<ANKOMMEN>>045--illat <<EINTRETEN>> <<FRESSEN>>046---vertik047----up048----down <<BEGRABEN>>049--allat <<BRINGEN>> <<ANTREFFEN>> <<ZURÜCKHALTEN>> 149 <<HINSTEL-

LEN>> <<ANSCHIRREN>> <<EINSAMMELN>>050---vertik051----up <<SICH-AUFSTELLEN>> <<HOCHHEBEN>> <<HERAUSHOLEN>>052----down <<HINEINWERFEN>> <<SICH-VERNEIGEN>> <<(SICH) SETZEN>>

<<HINABBRINGEN>> <<FALLEN>>053CHRONOLOGIE054zeitlos055Leerstelle056Problemfall057zeitgebunden058-semper059-kontingent060--absolut061---deiktisch062---datiert063----fix064----indefinit065--relativ066---vor-z067---gleich-z068---nach-z

TG: SYNOPTISCHES LESEN DER ANALYSEN WIRD NOTWENDIG

147 Vgl. zusätzlich die tg Einordnung beim Code EPISTEMOLOGIE.148 Vgl. zusätzlich tg den Code INITIATIVE.149 ...besagt, daß äußerlich gerade keine Transaktion läuft. Das

Prädikat muß also neu bestimmt werden: <<NEGATION + GEBEN>>.

Beispiel 1: <<STEHLEN>>Semantik formuliert: [1. Aktant] = [3. Aktant-Adressat]

[dynamisch-initiativ][2. Aktant] ist betroffen

[3. Aktant-Defizient] = der BeklauteTG formuliert: Unrecht: [Code AXIOLOGIE-dysphorisch]

betrifft Wissen um Besitz [Code EPISTEMOLOGIE-cognitiv]unter diesen Vorzeichen wechselt der [2. Aktant]

den Ort [Topologie-dislokativ-separativ]

Beispiel 2: <<HINABBRINGEN>> und <<FALLEN>> haben tg die gleichetopologische Analyse. Der Unterschied liegt schon bei der Seman-tik:<<HINABBRINGEN>> [dynamisch-initiativ]

[2. Aktant]

<<FALLEN>> [dynamisch-fientisch]nur [1. Aktant]

Beispiel 3: "und sie heraufholten Josef aus dem Brunnen"

Semantik: " aus dem Brunnen " =[Topologie-dislokativ- separativ-elativ -vertikal-up]

TG: <<HERAUFHOLEN>>[Topologie-dislokativ- adventiv-allativ -vertikal-up]

Beispiel 4:"und den Scheck nehmt

[Topologie-dislokativ-separativ-ablativ]"und geht "

[Topologie-dislokativ-prolativ]"und bringt ihn zur Bank"

[Topologie-dislokativ-adventiv-allativ]

Appendix 16:

Thema-Rhema / Beispiel

zu: vprag6.511

aus: Olga I. MOSKALSKAJA, Textgrammatik. Leipzig 1984.

(47f) Hier ein Beispiel für den Gesprächsdialog aus Wolfgang Bor-cherts Geschichte "Nachts schlafen die Ratten doch". Der Dialog um-faßt mehrere Themen (die direkte Rede der handelnden Personen istder besseren Übersichtlichkeit halber gerade gesetzt):

Du schläft hier wohl, was? fragte der Mann und sah von oben aufdas Haargestrüpp herunter. Jürgen blinzelte zwischen den Beinendes Mannes hindurch in die Sonne und sagte: Nein, ich schlafenicht. Ich muß hier aufpassen. Der Mann nickte: So, dafür hastdu wohl den großen Stock da? ja, antwortete Jürgen mutig undhielt den Stock fest.

Worauf paßt du denn auf?Das kann ich nicht sagen. Er hielt die Hände fest um den Stock.Wohl auf Geld, was?Nein, auf Geld überhaupt nicht, sagte Jürgen verächtlich, aufganz etwas anderes.Na, was denn?Ich kann es nicht sagen. Was anderes eben.Na denn nicht.

Dann sage ich dir natürlich auch nicht, wasich hier im Korb habe. Der Mann stieß mit dem Fuß an den Korbund klappte das Messer zu.Pah, kann ich mir denken, was in dem Korb ist, meinte Jürgengeringschätzig. Kaninchenfutter.Donnerwetter, ja! sagte der Mann verwundert,

bist ja ein fixerKerl.Wie alt bist du denn?Neun.Oha, denk mal an, neun also. Dann weißt du ja auch, wievieldrei mal neun sind, wie?Klar, sagte Jürgen und, um Zeit zu gewinnen, sagte er noch:Das ist ja ganz leicht. Und er sah durch die Beine des Manneshindurch.Dreimal neun, nicht? fragte er noch mal, siebenundzwanzig. Daswußte ich gleich.Stimmt, sagte der Mann,

und genau soviel Kaninchen habe ich.Jürgen machte einen runden Mund: Siebenundzwanzig?Du kannst sie sehen. Viele sind noch ganz jung. Willst du?Ich kann doch nicht. Ich muß doch aufpassen, sagte Jürgen unsi-cher.Immerzu? fragte der Mann , nachts auch?Nachts auch. Immerzu. Immer. Jürgen sah an den krummen Beinenhoch. Seit Sonnabend schon, flüsterte er. (Borchert)

T1 R

1 - Du schläfst hier wohl,

was? (ich = Jürgen) (schlafe nicht) - Nein, ich schlafe

nicht. T

1 R

2 - Ich muß hier aufpassen

(muß aufpassen) - So, dafür hast du T

2 R

3 den großen Stock da?

(dafür) (habe...den - Ja. Stock)

T

3 R

4 - Worauf paßt du denn

auf? (worauf Jürgen (kann...nicht sagen) - Das kann ich nicht sa-

gen. aufpaßt) R

5 - Wohl auf Geld, was?

T3 (ist nicht Geld) - Nein, auf Geld über-

haupt nicht, R

6 - auf ganz etwas anderes.

T3 (ist etwas anderes) - Na, was denn?

R4 - Ich kann es nicht sa-

gen. T

3 R

6 - Was anderes eben.

T3 - Na, denn nicht.

T4 R

7 - Dann sage ich dir na-

türlich (ich=der Mann) (sage nicht, was auch nicht, was ich im Korb ist) hier im Korb habe.

- Pah, kann mir denken, was in dem Korb ist,

T5 R

8 Kaninchenfutter.

(was im Korb Kaninchen Donnerwetter, ja!ist) futter)

T

5 (=T

1 ) R

9 - Bist ja ein fixer

(du=Jürgen)(fixer Kerl) Kerl. Wie alt bist du denn? - Neun.

T5 R

1

0 - Oha, denk mal an, neun,

also.

T6 R

1

1 - Dann weißt du ja

(wieviel ist (siebenundzwanzig) auch, wievieldreimal neun) dreimal neun sind,

wie?- Das ist ja ganz leicht

T7 R

1

2 Dreimal neun, nicht?

(Das) (wußte ich Siebenundzwanzig.gleich) Das wußte ich gleich.

- Stimmt.

T8 (=T

4 ) R

1

3 - Und genau soviel

(ich=der (habe 27 Kaninchen habe ich.Mann) Kaninchen) - Siebenundzwanzig?

T9 R

1

4 -; Du kannst sie se-

(sie) (du kannst hen. Viele sind

...sehen) noch ganz jung. Willstdu?

T

1

0 R

1

5

(viele) (sind jung)T

1

1 R

1

6 - Ich kann doch

(...sehen) (kann nicht) nicht. Ich muß dochaufpassen.

T1

2 R

1

7 - Immerzu? Nachts auch?

(muß auf- - Nachts auch. Immerzu.Immer.

passen) Seit Sonnabend schon.T

1

3 R

1

8

(nachts auch)T

1

3 R

1

9

(immer)T

1

3 R

2

0

(seit Sonnabend)

Appendix 17:

Akteursbeschreibung

zu: vprag2.52

aus: P. ORLIK, Sprachspiele und Lebensformen. Kritische Untersuchun-gen zur Philosophie und Psychologie der Menschenkenntnis. Lengerich2006.

(442) Eva

Die Siebenjährige hatte der Untersucherin auf die Frage "Was findestDu gut an dir?", mit entwaffnender Direktheit geantwortet: "Dass ichfrech bin". Für die Normstichprobe der Kinder ist diese Selbstcha-rakterisierung ein seltenes Ereignis (Programm SESYGRID); schon indiesem Detail deutete sich die singuläre Semantik von Evas Selbst-bild an.

Gab Eva da eine Selbsteinsicht zu Protokoll? Ist sie "wirklich"frech oder tut sie manchmal nur so? Aus der Sicht der Sprachspiel-Diagnostik wären diese Fragen falsch gestellt. Wir sollten vielmehrEvas Sprachspiel beim Wort nehmen und ihren Kinderstolz auf gele-gentliche Verstöße gegen soziale Spielregeln als handlungsleitendespersönliches Konstrukt anerkennen. Sie will frech sein. Wie wirdurch die Lehrerin wissen, bleibt es nicht bei der Ankündigung; dennEva schlüpft gerne in die Rolle des Klassenclowns und folgt dem Un-terricht nur mit mäßigem Interesse.

An anderer Stelle ihres Grids beschreibt Eva nicht nur ihre Freunde,sondern auch sich selbst als "lieb", in Gegensatz zu dem von ihrgemiedenen Verhalten "böse sein und andere Leute ärgern". Also: malbezeichnet sie sich als lieb, mal als frech bzw. böse. Eine Unauf-merksamkeit, ein Versprecher? Vieles spricht dafür, dass sie aufzwei voneinander unabhängige Lebensformen anspielt: Freundschafthier und demonstratives Außenseitertum dort.

Aus dem Dendrogramm (Programm TREEGRID) ist zu entnehmen, wie wenigGemeinsamkeit Eva zwischen sich und allen anderen (!) verspürt, diesie sämtlich als "schön", "alles können", "schnell" und "munter"bewundert. Ihr bleibt nur der geringe Trost, eine ebenso "kleineNase" zu haben wie die anderen und nicht "zu stinken". Dieses Sym-ptom erlebter Isolierung hat seine Entsprechung in ZOOMGRID, wo diepositive Kontrastierung (443) fast aller Bezugspersonen und die am-bivalente Aufsuchens-Meidens-Beziehung zu beiden. Eltern auffallen.In SESYGRID wird die problematische Haltung der Leistungsverweige-rung in Evas Selbst-System sichtbar: Rückzug wird akzeptiert, Leis-tungs-Konstrukte werden kritisiert oder gar gemieden.

Evas Topogramm (Programm TOPOGRID) zeigt schließlich die massiveAbweichung der Semantik ihres Selbstbildes (R*) von den Normwertenihrer Altersgenossen: Die Kleine wertet sich als in Selbstzweifelnbefangenes Persönchen ab (DNF-Kodierung). Den Eltern begegnet sie,für ihre Altersgruppe ebenfalls untypisch, mit Ambivalenz in Formvon Aufsuchen-Meidens-Konflikten. Beide erniedrigten Konventionali-täts(CQ)-Werte deuten auf eine, das gesamte Grid-Protokoll durch-dringende, Tendenz zu unkonventionellen Sprachspiel-Zügen und rundendas problematische Bild der sympathischen kleinen Außenseiterin ab.

Skin

Der glatzköpfige junge Mann antwortet auf die Frage nach der Selbst-akzeptanz geradeheraus: "Ich bin stolz, ein Deutscher zu sein". Erist übrigens der einzige in meiner Gesamtstichprobe, der diese Form

der Selbstcharakterisierung als persönliches Konstrukt zu Protokollgab. Auch sonst wird deutlich, dass die Semantik seines Wortge-brauchs in wichtigen Punkten von den Erwartungswerten konventionel-ler Sprachspiele Erwachsener abweicht: Im TOPOGRAMM idealisiert ereine Haltung der Intoleranz und verzichtet weitgehend auf gemeinhinals positiv geltende zwischenmenschliche Urteile (Sympathie undLeistung), was sich in einem extrem niedrigen semantischen Konventi-onalitäts(CQ)-Wert niederschlägt.

Umso bemerkenswerter ist, dass die Valorik seines Grids, wie derhohe CQ-Wert ausweist, höchst konventionell ausfällt. Auch erbraucht also Bezugspersonen, die er bewundern kann, steht, wie diemeisten Erwachsenen, auf Distanz zu seinen Eltern und orientiertsich an seinen Freunden, nur mit dem semantisch auffälligen Unter-schied, dass für ihn ein erkennbar gewaltbetontes Menschenbild lei-tend ist, welches er solchen Zeitgenossen entgegenstellt, die er denals "undeutsch", unmännlich, spießig und schwächlich verabscheut.

Die z.T. verworren anmutenden Zusammenhänge fügen sich durch Hinzu-nahme weiterer Einzelbefunde nach und nach zusammen. So lenkt z.B.das Programm FAGRID erstmals den (444) Blick auf die rüde Abqualifi-zierung von Freundin, Mutter und sogar akzeptiertem Lehrer als"Waschlappen", scheinbar in Widerspruch zu TREEGRID, wo Freundin undMutter, wiewohl "Waschlappen", zu den "mannhaften Deutschen" zählen,offensichtlich allein deswegen, weil sie zu dem als "unmännlich-un-deutsch" abqualifizierten Vater in Gegensatz stehen. Und so schältsich, Schritt für Schritt, als zentrales "Konstrukt" unseres Pb dieZweiteilung seines sozialen Umfeldes in die "mannhaften Deutschen"hier und die "uncoolen Feiglinge" dort heraus.

Programm ZOMMGRID (Option "Feinanalyse von Einzelpersonen") machtwahrscheinlich, dass die negative Identifikation des Pb mit seinemSkin-Freund nur scheinbar selbstkritische Züge trägt, sondern inWahrheit positive Bedeutung hat: Wenn er beklagt, dass jener ebensovorbestraft, einsam und arm sei wie er selbst, kritisiert er denFreund dafür ebenso wenig wie sich selbst; kritisiert werden viel-mehr die widrigen Umstände, deren Opfer man geworden ist und gegendie man sich gemeinsam verbündet. Denkbar ist sogar, dass es sichbei dem sog. Freund um eine Fürhrungsfigur der Skinhead-Szene han-delt, zumal er das Wunschbild des "Kaltschnäuzigen" verkörpert.

Appendix 18:

Semantische Entität

zu: vsem3.221

aus: J. Lachlan MACKENZIE, 94. Entity concepts, S. 973-983 in: BOO-IJ, G; LEHMANN, C; MUGDAN, J ; SKOPETEAS, S, Morphologie/Morphology:Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. 2. Halb-band. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Hand-books of Linguistics and Communication Science. 17/2. Berlin 2004:de Gruyter.

(973) The situations to which entities belong are invoked linguisti-cally through the co-operative, interpersonal process of reference.Reference involves a fourfold relation between a speaker S, anaddressee A, a referent (or set of referents) E, and a referringexpression R: {S, A, E, R}. The referents referred to by a speakerare not phenomena of the real world, but "mental phenomena", pheno-mena in the mental world. They are introduced into the ongoing dis-course, and referred to and talked about irrespective of their sta-tus in reality. Illusory, hallucinatory or imaginary phenomena canin principle be talked about just as easily as veridical phenomena,i.e. those corresponding to phenomena in the real world, and withoutany consequences for the form of the referring expression itself.

What is more, the linguistic codification of reality is often atodds with phenomena in the real world. One of the most striking as-pects of this disparity is the linguistic distinction between coun-table and uncountable referents, ... There is ultimately no basis inexternal reality for this opposition: to give but one example, theEnglish collective furniture denotes an uncountable entity yet cor-responds to a plurality of entities in the real world (chairs, ta-bles, bookcases, etc.).

All such referents, be they real or imaginary, countable or uncoun-table, will in this chapter be termed entities. "Entity" will thushere be used to identify the mental unit E that the speaker S, byusing a referring expression R, wishes the addressee A to eitherconstrue (in the case of first mention) or reidentify (in the caseof subsequent mention) - for details, see Dik (1989: 114).

s l a n g 2 / c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s arbeitspapier ... file1.4 meaning unit of the first...

Documents