Content uploaded by Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen on Mar 20, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Elusive connectives. A case study on the
explicitness dimension of discourse
coherence
1
CATHRINE FABRICIUS-HANSEN
Abstract
The present article is an explorative study concerned with the elusiveness
of certain connectives (discourse particles), intralinguistically and across
languages: the fact that one and the same connective may seem redundant
in one context but indispensable in another context; and that a connective
may tend to appear in one language under conditions where no explicit con-
nective device is used in some other language. More specifically, the article
deals with the German particles (adverbs) wieder ‘again’ and dabei, lit.
‘thereby’ and their glosses in English and Norwegian, which are studied
across a corpus of text samples and sentence-aligned translations in Ger-
man, English, and Norwegian (the Oslo Mulitlingual Corpus). The two
first sections present a preliminary outline of the problem and the method
to be used, along with some terminological clarification. Each of the follow-
ing two main sections briefly outlines the semantics of one German particle,
presents data from the corpus showing that it remarkably often has no
explicit translational image in English or Norwegian, and ends by discus-
sing characteristic cases and general tendencies to be derived from the data
of comparison. The final section (Section 4) summarizes the findings and
proposes provisional conclusions pointing towards bidirectional optimal-
ity theory as a fruitful theoretical background for further research in this
area.
1. Introduction
Over the past two or three decades, discourse particles and connectives
have been studied from di¤erent theoretical perspectives, and our insight
into their ‘‘nature’’ has increased considerably. But one aspect (of some
of them) has, as yet, received little attention: th eir optionality, or even ap-
parent redundancy, related to their still not arbitrary status as a means to
Linguistics 43–1 (2005), 17–48 0024–3949/05/0043–0017
6 Walter de Gruyter
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 17)
organize the coherence of the discourse. This is the subject of the present
article.
In a relevance theoretic setting, for instance, the function of a discourse
particle occurring in a sentence S is to restrict the set of implicatures
allowed by S in the context of a preceding utterance or sentence ‘S. The
implicatures of an utterance include those contextual assumptions which
the addressee has to supply in order to preserve his or her assumption
that the utterance is consistent with the principle of relevance (cf. Blake-
more 1992). The connective, then, makes the discourse relations (in a
broad sense) between ‘S and S and the information structure of the
discourse more explicit by expressing overtly what might be inferred or
implicated anyway; that is, what is already implicitly ‘‘there,’’ at least po-
tentially; and by filtering out certain possibilities, it makes the discourse
more informative or precise, thus guiding the reader or hearer towards
the interpretation intended by the author or speaker.
On the other hand, the interpretation potential of a semantically more
or less underspecified connective is normally constrained in a systematic
manner by the context it occurs in, including its position in S. In fact,
the influence of the context may be so strong that it pushes the interpreta-
tion towards or even beyond the (fuzzy) borders of the semantic domain
covered by the connective (Fabricius-Hansen and Behrens 2001).
The com plicated interplay between what connectives allow and what
their contexts demand has mostly been studied monolingually and very
often on the basis of sequences of two sentences without a natural con-
text (but see, e.g., Doherty 1999; Hasselga
˚
rd et al. 2002; Fretheim and
Johansson 2002; Sæbø 2003). The present article approaches the subject
from an interlingual text-oriented perspective, focusing on what I call
‘‘elusive’’ connectives in German, in particular wieder ‘again’ and dabei,
lit. ‘thereby.’ These connective adverbs surprisingly often disappear (re-
main untranslated) in English translations from German and, conversely,
emerge (translate nothing) in German translations from English (cf.
Fabricius-Hansen 2001; Fabricius-Hansen and Behrens 2001); thus they
would seem to corroborate von Stutterheim’s (1997) observation that
German tends to mark referential movement within the temporal domain
more persistently than is the case, for example, in English. A similar but
somewhat less marked tendency holds for translations between German
and Norwegian.
In a recent paper, Zeevat (2003) suggests that discourse particles are
markers of a relation of the content of the current sentence to the context (or
another parameter of the utterance context) and can be there because of either a
functional necessity (if the relation in question is unmarked, the wrong interpreta-
tion results) or a universal principle that requires the marking of the relationship.
18 C. Fabricius-Hansen
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 18)
This would also require some functional explanation, but it is not the same: we
would find the marker even if there is not a functional necessity (Zeevat 2003: 10).
That is, Zeevat shares with Blakemore the view that discourse particles
(may) function as a device to prevent misunderstanding and guide the
reader or hearer towards the ‘‘right’’ interpretation of the relationship
between neighboring sentences or text segments. In addition, he assumes
that ‘‘there is a strong functional pressure to have ways of expressing
these relations,’’ speculating that we may even have to do with a universal
requirement of marking such relations. The nature of this requirement
remains obscure, however.
Obviously, if connectives may disappear under translation without
being compensated for by other means of expression, their use cannot be
explained by functional necessity or universal requirement alone; these
notions will have to be modified or relativized somewhat. Thus, studying
the translational pattern of elusive connectives, in particular the condi-
tions under which they tend to be omitted and added, and the e¤ects of
their (dis)appearance, may not only help us understand the seman tics of
the individual connectives involved in the study but also shed some light
on general vs. language specific aspects of discourse linking. That is the
primary concern of the present article. It should be understood as an ex-
plorative case study, providing empirical dat a that an adequate theory of
discourse particles or connectives will have to take into account.
The study is based on three subcorpora of the Oslo Multilingual Cor-
pus,
2
consisting of excerpts (of approximately 10–15,000 words each)
from 20–30 original texts in English, Germa n, and Norwegian, and their
authorized translations into the two other languages. The parallel texts
are sentence-aligned. Searching for again in English source or target texts,
for instance, automatically gives you all sentence s containing again and
the corresponding sentences in the German and Norwegian target or
source texts, including (at most) 25 sentences preceding and/or following
the relevant sentence.
The article is organized in two main sections (Sections 3 and 4), one
for each of the two German adverbs mentioned above, and a conclud-
ing summary (Section 5). Each main section o¤ers a brief outline of
the semantics of the connective, a presentation of quantitative findings,
and a discussion of selected examples directed towards the following
questions:
– How do wieder and dabei and their counterparts in, for example,
English and Norwegian contribute to discourse interpretation or
processing? Ho w do they interact with (discourse) information
structure?
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 19)
Elusive connectives 19
– What triggers the ‘‘disappearance’’ or ‘‘emergence’’ of these ad-
verbs in translation ? Is it possible to identify discourse conditions
that require the presence of one or the other?
First, however, my use of the term ‘‘connective’’ may need a comment.
2. Connectives and explicitness of linking
For some reason, terminological diversification and confusion is par-
ticularly abundant in the area we are concerned with here. It should
therefore be stressed that I use the term connective in a rather broad
sense, as a cover term for conjunctions (and/und but/aber), (discourse)
particles like too /auch, even/sogar, and adverbs like therefo re/deshalb,
then/dann.
What they have in common — apart from being noncomplements — is
that they ‘‘link’’ the abstract (event-like) referent described by the verb
projection they command or modify to a discourse referent of the same
type introduced in the relevant context. With sentence-intern al conjunc-
tions, of course, the relevant context is the immediately preceding clause.
Otherwise it may comprise a sentence or a larger discourse segment to the
left of but not necessarily immediately preceding the current sentence; or
it may be identical to the situational context.
Some connective adverbs have a fairly transparent anaphoric or deictic
origin that explains their connective capacity: they require a proper ante-
cedent for their interpretation, that is, the link is established by anaphoric
resolution. German dabei, lit. ‘there-by’ belongs to that category. Con-
nectives like too/auch and again/wieder, on the other hand, can be de-
scribed as nonanaphoric presupposition carriers; here the link is ‘‘picked
up’’ by nonanaphoric presupposition justification (but see Zeevat 2003).
Following the same line of reasoning, prepositional adjuncts contain-
ing definite descriptions like for that reason/aus dem Grunde and under
this condition/unter dieser Bedingung can be considered connectives, too.
They di¤er from simple connectives like so, then, therefore by conta in-
ing a (more) explicit description of the link, that is, the antecedent of
the definite description, and its relation to the referent introduced by the
modified clause itself; but the di¤erence is of a gradual kind.
Widening the perspective, then, we end up with a continu um of connec-
tive devices, comparable to the ‘‘continuum of explicitness of linking’’
or ‘‘syndesis-asyndesis continuum’’ suggested by Lehmann (1988) but
operating in two dimensions rather than one: with respect to the means
of determining the ‘‘link’’ (henceforth: the antecedent), on the one hand,
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 20)
20 C. Fabricius-Hansen
and the degree of explicitness or preciseness with which the relation be-
tween the two relevant discourse referents is determined, on the other
hand.
Thus, in a given context, the ing-adjunct (‘‘converb construction,’’ cf.
Haspelmath and Ko
¨
nig 1995) having chopped them and the prepositional
phrase after that may function as equivalent alternative expressions,
receiving the same interpretation in context; cf. (1b) and (1c). The ana-
phoric prepositional phrase is inherently less explicit than the ing-adjunct
when it comes to characterizing the event that is linked to the matrix-
clause event but determines the temporal relation between the two events
at least as explicitly as the ing-construction. Both are less explicit than the
full temporal clause in (1a) and more explicit (one way or the other) than
the simple anaphoric adverb in (1d) (cf. Ko
¨
nig [1995: 62]). As we shall see
below (Section 4), English translations of German dabei operate over the
whole range of possibilities within this area.
(1) He chopped the trees.
a. When he had chopped them, he shaped them. . . .
(Thompson and Longacre 1985: 213)
b. Having chopped them, he shaped them.
c. After that, he shaped them.
d. Then he shaped them.
3. Wieder
3.1. Semantics
It is generally recognized that wieder like again and its counterpart in
Norwegian (igjen) has two major uses, a repetitive use (2) where it is
often interchangeable with noch einmal, erneut (once more, anew; nok en
gang, pa
˚
ny), and a restitutive (reversive,
3
restorative
4
) use (3) implying
the restoration of a state that has held before.
5
(2) a. The testing I had done so far told me nothing about Dr P.’s
inner world. Was it possible that his visual memory and imagi-
nation were still intact?
I asked him to imagine entering one of our local squares from
the north side, to walk through it, in imagination or in memory,
and tell me the buildings he might pass as he walked.
He listed the buildings on his right side, but none of those on his
left.
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 21)
Elusive connectives 21
I th en asked him to imagine entering the square from the south.
Again he mentioned only those buildings that were on the right
side, although these were the very buildings he had omitted be-
fore. (OS1)
b. [...]
Ich bat ihn, in seiner Erinnerung oder in seiner Vorstellung
einen der Pla
¨
tze in unserer Stadt zu u
¨
berqueren und mir die
Geba
¨
ude zu beschreiben, an denen er vorbeikam.
Er za
¨
hlte die [Geba
¨
ude] auf der rechten Seite, nicht aber die zu
seiner Linken auf.
Dann bat ich ihn, sich vorzustellen, er betrete den Platz von
Su
¨
den her. Wieder beschrieb er nur die Geba
¨
ude zur Rechten,
eben jene, die er zuvor nicht genannt hatte.
(3) a. Und nun [...] bekam ich dieses blasse, zarte, trockene, nach
nichts schmeckende Ding auf die Zunge gelegt — ich war drauf
und dran, es wieder auszuspucken! (HEB1)
b. And then [...] that pale, fragile, dry, tasteless thing was placed
on my tongue — I almost spat it out again!
In theoretical semantics, it has been debated for many years whether
to account for the repetitive–restitutive dichotomy in purely structural
terms, in terms of lexical ambiguity or polysemy, or by other means.
6
In the present context, we need not go in to that discussion, however.
Following Klein (2001: 278), a nonfomalized version of the structural
approach found in von Stechow (2003), I shall simply say that the adverb
makes the meaning contribution ‘‘. . . and th is not for the first time’’ to the
sentence it occurs in. What ‘‘this’’ is — for example, an event, as in (2) or
the result of a reversible change of state, as in (3) — depends on what the
adverb, semanti cally speaking, has scope over in the clause it modifies,
and the information structure of that clause — which, in its turn, is
strongly determined by the preceding context. The important point is
that wieder/again is a presupposition trigger, instructing the reader or
listener to search the previous discourse for the entity that justifies its
presupposition, that is, a previous instance of ‘‘this.’’ According to the
standard analysis (or analyses) , wieder/again, like auch/too, is void of
assertive content, that is, its meaning contribution is purely presupposi-
tional.
7
This view is now being been challenged, at least as far as the re-
petitive variety is concerned (Huitink 2003; Sæbø 2003, 2004). But still it
can be maintained that in a context justifying its presupposition, wieder/
again does not influence the truth cond itions of the sentence and dis-
course it occurs in.
8
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 22)
22 C. Fabricius-Hansen
Typically, the restitutive variety occ urs in discourses describing a se-
quence of two inverse changes-of-state (or a series of mutually comple-
mentary states) involving one and the same participant(s) x, as illustrated
in (3): the tasteless thing getting into and out of the mouth (i.e. being first
outside, then in, and then outside th e mouth). That is, the adverb associ-
ates with the predicate of the modified clause or VP. The sentence has
a neutral to pic–comment structure with focus accent on the predicate,
which represents new information, relevant alternatives being other things
that might happen to or hold of x under the given circumstances, for ex-
ample, that the tasteless thing remains in the mouth or is swallowed. The
adverb itself is an unaccented ‘‘reminder’’ of given information, viz. that
x has been in the state implied or described by the predicate before.
In the repetit ive case, on the other hand, we typically have to do with a
sequence of times or situations instantiating one and the same abstract
property, as illustrated in (2): the property that Dr. P. mentions only
buildings on the right hand side in the given situation. The time or situa-
tion referents in question are topical in the given (narrative) discourse.
But as topic times, they may be implicit, that is, they are not necessarily
expressed in the sentences themselves but may be taken over or construed
from the preceding context (von Stutterheim 1997; Dimroth forthcom-
ing). In (2), the topic times are the two occasions where the patient is
asked to mention the buildings he passes in his imagination; but neither
is overtly expressed in the sentences describing the patient’s response to
the test. Since the comment part of the sentence containing the repetitive
adverb — the material to the right of the adverb — describes a property
that is already instantiated in the discourse, it is deaccented. The adverb
itself, then, is the only constituent left to carry the sentence accent which
has to be realized (cf. Ja
¨
ger and Blutner i.p.; Dimroth forthcoming; Sæbø
2003, 2004). Thus, the contribution of the repetitive adverb is focused: the
information that the current topic is not the first discourse referent instan-
tiating the event type described in the current sentence.
The interplay between information structure at discourse level and
the repetitive–restitutive dichotomy can be seen quite nicely in (4): as it
stands, this text will preferably be understood as focusing on the protago-
nist’s changing moods (smiling–gloomy–smiling). That is, la
¨
chelte/smiled
in the first sentence is interpreted inchoatively, marking the beginning of a
state that ends by ‘his’ becoming gloomy; and wieder/again will be deac-
cented, receiving a restitutive-like interpretation: the protagonist returns
to his friendly mood.
(4) a. Sobald er mich sah, la
¨
chelte er ein wenig und hob die Axt, und
es war schrecklich, mit welchem Zorn er auf das Holz losschlug.
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 23)
Elusive connectives 23
Er wurde dann finster und sang seine Lieder. Wenn er die Axt
niederlegte, la
¨
chelte er mich wieder an, und ich wartete auf sein
La
¨
cheln wie er auf mich, der erste Flu
¨
chtling in meinem Leben.
(EC1)
b. The instant he saw me, he smiled slightly and raised the ax, and
it was terrible to wat ch his rage as he smashed into the wood.
He became gloomy then and sang his songs. When he put the
ax down, he smiled at me again, and I waited for his smile just
as he waited for me, he, the first refugee in my life.
But if the second sentence is left out, as in (4
0
), a repetitive reading will be
preferred. Now, the ‘‘quaestio’’ rather concer ns what happens — or how
the protagonist acts — at di¤erent topic times; and the adverb carries
the accent, focusing on the information that the same thing happens the
second time.
(4
0
) a. Sobald er mich sah, la
¨
chelte er ein wenig und hob die Axt und
schlug auf das Ho lz los. Wenn er die Axt niederlegte, la
¨
chelte er
mich wieder an.
b. The instant he saw me, he smiled slightly and raised the ax,
smashing into the wood. When he put the ax down, he smiled
at me again .
3.2. Data
From a semantic point of view, wieder, again, and igjen are lexical coun-
terparts (with certain exception s as far as igjen is concerned), sharing
the repetitive–restitutive variation described above.
9
But their mutual
correspondence
10
in translations is relatively low, especially as regards
wieder and again, indicating di¤erences of language use (cf. Ko
¨
nig et al.
1990).
In the present context, we are concerned with what I shall call zero
ratios for wieder as compared to again and igjen, that is, the frequency
with which the adverb is ‘‘omitted’’ (X ! Zero) in translations into or
‘‘added’’ (X Zero) in translations from the other language. Zero corre-
spondencies are opposed to translation pairs where the adverb has an ex-
plicit counterpart in the parallel text, that is, an expression encoding the
(repetitive or restitutive) meaning contributed by the adverb itself. This
expression need not be the lexical counterpart of the adverb as deter-
mined above. Thus, in all three languages, there are adverbial alternatives
to the repetitive use of wieder/again/igjen, representing possible alterna-
tives to the adverb in translation: noch einmal, nochmals, abermals, erneut ,
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 24)
24 C. Fabricius-Hansen
von neuem in German, once more, a second time in English, and atter (en
gang), nok/enda en gang , pa
˚
ny(tt), en gang til in Norwegian. Prenomi-
nal another/en annen is another possible source or target of wieder with
scope over an indefinite NP (5).
(5) a. If only he can find another director like Franc¸ois Masson, his
work will come into its own again. (ABR1)
b. Wenn er bloß wieder einen Regisseur wie Franc¸ois Masso n
findet, wird er einen neuen Durchbruch haben.
c. Hvis han bare kunne finne en annen regissør som Franc¸ois
Masson, da ville arbeidet hans igjen komme til sin rett.
The restitutive variety has no general competitor in any of the three
languages. But depending on the context, wieder may correspond to
the prefix re-
11
(6) or to back in English and tilbake in Norwegian (7);
etc.
(6) a. Auch der kleine, der molekulare Bu
¨
rgerkrieg dauert nicht ewig.
Nach der Straßenschlacht kommen die Glaser, nach der Plu
¨
n-
derung schließen zwei Ma
¨
nner mit Zangen und Kabelenden das
Telefon in der verwu
¨
steten Zelle wieder an. (HEB1)
b. Even the small-scale, molecular civil war doesn’t last for ever.
After the street battle, the glazier arrives; the telephone in the
vandalized kiosk is reconnected by two men with pliers and con-
nection blocks.
c. Heller ikke den lille, den molekylære borgerkrigen varer evig.
Etter gateslaget kommer glassmesteren, etter hærverket kobler
to menn med tang og ledningstumper igjen til telefonen i den øde-
lagte kiosken.
(7) a. Aurora, die mit dem Erreichen der Großja
¨
hrigkeit wieder in das
Elternhaus u
¨
bersiedelt war [...], bekam die Folgen zu spu
¨
ren.
(EHA1)
b. Aurora, who on reaching legal age had moved back into the
family home [...], felt the consequences.
c. Aurora, som i og med myndighetsalderen var flyttet tilbake til
barndomshjemmet [...], skulle snart merke følgene.
In the tables below, all such correspondencies are registered as nonzero
correspondencies, including translation pairs involving lexicalized verbs
and special varieties of igjen (see Note 9), for example, recognize : erkenn-
. . . wieder / kjenne igjen , wieder abscha¤en :repeal. The main point is
whether a ‘‘free’’ occurrence of the repetitive–restitutive adverb has an
overt tran slation image in the cor responding (target or source) sentence,
as in the examples above, or not, as in (8).
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 25)
Elusive connectives 25
(8) a. ‘‘I should have agreed to teach summer school,’’ Sarah said.
‘‘Something to give some shape to things.’’ (AT1)
b. ‘‘Ich ha
¨
tte diesen Ferienkurs doch u
¨
bernehmen sollen,’’ sagte
Sarah. ‘‘Damit die Dinge wenigstens wieder etwas Form anneh-
men.’’
c. ‘‘Jeg skulle sagt ja takk til lærerjobben pa
˚
den sommers-
kolen,’’ sa Sarah. ‘‘Et eller annet som kunne fa
˚
tt litt orden pa
˚
tilværelsen.’’
Table 1 shows that almost 40% (39.4%) of the 249 wieder tokens in origi-
nal German texts are omitted in the English target texts (wieder ! zero
frequency, row 1) and, conversely, that more than one third (34.4%) of
all wieder occurrences in German translations from English have no overt
source (wieder zero frequency, row 2). In comparison, the zero corre-
spondencies for again with respect to German are 9.9% for translations
into German (again ! zero) and 5.4% for translat ions from German
(zero again), that is, almost four and seven times as low, respectively;
cf. Table 2.
The zero ratio is relatively high for wieder with respect to Norwegian
(Table 3), too, and higher for source than for target texts (wieder ! zero
Table 2. Again translated into (!) and from ( ) German
Explicit
wieder
A wieder Zero Total
1. ! Ge 205 (59.4%) 106 (30.7%) 34 (9.9%) 345 (100%)
2. Ge 98 (66.7%) 41 (27.9%) 8 (5.4%) 147 (100%)
Table 3. Wieder translated into (!) and from ( ) Norwegian
Explicit
igjen
A igjen Zero Total
1. ! No 156 (67.2%) 44 (16.6%) 64 (24.2%) 264 (100%)
2. No 314 (64.3%) 92 (18.9%) 82 (16.8%) 488 (100%)
Table 1. Wieder translated into (!) and from ( ) English*
Explicit
again
A again Zero Total
1. ! En 98 (39.4%) 53 (21.2%) 98 (39.4%) 249 (100%)
2. En 205 (33.8%) 193 (31.8%) 208 (34.4%) 606 (100%)
* Excluding immer wieder ‘over and over again,’ hin und wieder ‘once and again’
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 26)
26 C. Fabricius-Hansen
24.2%, wieder zero 16.8%). The zero ratio for igjen with respect to
German (Table 4) does not di¤er significantly from the ratio for again
(Table 2).
12
The results for again compared to igjen, finally, are shown in Tables 5
and 6.
The zero ratio for again with respect to Norwegian (Table 5) corre-
sponds fairly well to what we found with respect to German (Table 2).
But again is even less elusive in Norwegian than in German translations
(8.4% :9.9%) and it is added a little more often in translations from Nor-
wegian than in translations from German (6.9% : 5.4%). As for igjen with
respect to English, Table 6 compared to Table 4 shows that the zero ratio
igjen ! En does not di¤er significantly from igjen ! Ge (8.2% : 8.8%)
whereas igjen emerges more often in translations from English than in
translations from German (12.7% : 8.8%).
Table 7 summarizes our findings as far as zero ratios are concerned.
If we — admittedly somewhat ad hoc — take a zero ratio of 10% to fall
within the limit of what may be expected for one reason or the other, we
can conclude that wieder does indeed disappear and emerge remarkably
often in translations between German and English and quite often with
respect to Norwegian, too.
13
Why should that be so, given functional
equivalence between the connectives on the one hand and equivalence
Table 4. Igjen translated into (!) and from ( ) German
Explicit
wieder
A wieder Zero Total
1. ! Ge 315 (63.4%) 138 (27.8%) 44 (8.8%) 497 (100%)
2. Ge 174 (60.0%) 95 (32.2%) 26 (8.8%) 295 (100%)
Table 5. Again translated into (!) and from ( ) Norwegian
Explicit
igjen
A igjen Zero Total
1. ! No 225 (65.2%) 91 (26.4%) 29 (8.4%) 345 (100%)
2. No 300 (76.3%) 66 (16.8%) 27 (6.9%) 393 (100%)
Table 6. Igjen translated into (!) and from ( ) English
Explicit
again
A again Zero Total
1. ! En 301 (60.6%) 154 (31.2%) 42 (8.2%) 497 (100%)
2. En 246 (42%) 253 (53.6%) 86 (12.7%) 716 (100%)
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 27)
Elusive connectives 27
between source and target text(s) on the ot her hand? It should be added
that wieder does not seem to be omitted quite arbitrarily, either. Thus,
comparing English and Norwegian parallel translations, we find that 136
(¼ 71%) of 191 explicit translations of wieder in Norwegian have explicit
counterparts in the English target texts, representing 82% of the explicit
total in English (Table 8). And 43 (¼ 74%) of 58 Norwegian zero trans-
lations are also zero translations in English; but these represent less than
half (44%) of the total number (98) of English zero correspondencies.
That is, the English target texts di¤er from the Norwegian target texts
mainly by omitting the adverb in 55 cases where Norwegian has an
explicit translation; otherwise, the correlation between the two target lan-
guages is relatively high.
3.3. Discussion
Wieder/zero correspondencies involving English seem to be found pre-
dominantly in prototypical restitutive contexts where the presupposition
triggered by the adverb is satisfied completely in the local context imme-
diately to the left of the modified clause or VP; cf. (9)–(10).
(9) a. Der Mann ist zu Boden getaumelt, mit einem eigenartigen, kaum
ho
¨
rbaren Schmerzensschrei, und dann sofort wieder aufgestan-
den, ohne daß ich ihm auch nur die Hand gereicht ha
¨
tte. (PH1)
Table 7. Zero ratios for wieder, again, and igjen
Source-text occurrence Zero ratio (%) Target-text occurrence Zero ratio (%)
igjen ! En 8.2 again Ge 5.4
again ! No 8.4 again No 6.9
igjen ! Ge 8.8 igjen Ge 8.8
again ! Ge 9.9 igjen En 12.7
wieder ! No 24.2 wieder No 16.8
wieder ! En 39.4 wieder En 34.4
Table 8. Wieder ! English and Norwegian
Source text wieder ! English Norwegian
Explicit Zero
Total
! Norwegian Explicit 136 55 191
Zero 15 43 58
English Total 151 98 249
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 28)
28 C. Fabricius-Hansen
b. The man fell to the ground with a strange, almost inaudible cry
of pain, then instantly stood up without my even o¤ering him a
helping hand.
(10) a. As I stared into the gash I heard a sharp noise, as of something
sundering, and I shut my eyes in horror, and when I opened
them I found myself somewhere else. (BO1)
b. Als ich in die Spalte starrte, ho
¨
rte ich ein scharfes Gera
¨
usch,
als ob etwas zerriß, und schloß vor Entsetzen die Augen. Als
ich sie wiede r aufmachte, war ich irgendwo anders.
When nothing in the preceding context could prevent the reader or hearer
from drawing the right inferences and thus arrive at the inten ded dis-
course interpretation anyway, wieder or its counterpart is redundant
from a (discourse) semantic point of view; and that may favor its absence
in English. Blatant discourse semantic redundancy does not seem to dis-
favor the use of wieder in German, however — perhaps because from the
perspective of discourse processing it still has its merit as an overt instruc-
tion of how to embed the information expressed in the modified clause
or VP into the current discourse representation; in fact, native speakers
tend to find corresponding sentences or discourses without wieder less
acceptable. But evidently, again is not excluded under similar conditions
in English, either; cf. (3) above and (11) below. The two languages simply
seem to follow di¤erent conventions or preferences in this area, with Nor-
wegian somewhere in the middle.
(11) a. I shut my eyes and when I opened them again I saw people who
walked backwards [...]. (BO1)
b. Ich schloß die Augen, und als ich sie wieder o
¨
¤nete, sah ich
Leute, die ru
¨
ckwa
¨
rts gingen, [...].
If it is true that local redundancy favors the absence of again in English as
compared to German, one would expect the indispensability of (wieder
and) again to increase with the amount of processing, including accom-
modation and the like, demanded in order to arrive at the intended inter-
pretation without that particle, or the amount of interpretation possibil-
ities (indeterminacy) ruled out by its presence, that is, its informativeness.
In (12), for instance, the restitutive adverb, modifying the metaphor-
ical VP die Kriegsflagge zu hissen/to hoist the flag, cannot be omitted: it
triggers the presupposition that the resultant state, that is, the flag being
up, has obtained before or in other words, that the change of state de-
scribed as ‘to hoist the flag’ reverses a preceding change of state (‘to lower
the flag’). The need to justify that presupposition makes the reader in-
terpret to hoist the flag as the reversal of the change of state described
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 29)
Elusive connectives 29
as changing their striking coloring for a monotonous dull grey (Fabricius-
Hansen 2001). Without the adverb, the text becomes incomprehensible
(incoherent).
(12) a. [...] ja, bei manchen [Korallenfischen] hat man den Eindruck,
sie mu
¨
ßten die kampfauslo
¨
sende Fa
¨
rbung ablegen, um eine
friedliche Anna
¨
herung der Geschlechter u
¨
berhaupt mo
¨
glich zu
machen. Ganz sicher gilt letzteres fu
¨
r die bunten, oft scharf
schwarzweiß gezeichneten Fischchen einer Gattung von ‘‘Dem-
oiselles’’, die ich mehrmals im Aquarium ablaichen sah und die
zu diesem Behufe ihre kontrastrei che Fa
¨
rbung gegen eine einfar-
big stumpfgraue vertauschen, um nach Vollzug des Laichaktes
alsbald wieder die Kriegsflagge zu hissen. (KOL1)
b. [...] in some [coral fish], one has the impression that they
are obliged to divest themselves of their fight-eliciting colors in
order to make friendly contact between the sexes possible. This
certainly applies to the demoiselle group; several times I saw a
brilliantly black-and-white species spawning in the aquarium;
for this purpose changing their striking coloring for a monoto-
nous dull grey , only to hoist the flag again as soon as spawning
was over.
Repetitive wieder /again tends to occur in a greater distance from its ante-
cedent than the restitutive variety (Fabricius-Hansen 2001; Sæbø 2003).
Normally, then, it may be expected to have a higher functional load as
a coherence-inducing device signaling ‘. . . and this not for the first time’
(cf. Section 3.1). As witnessed in (13), the repetitive adverb may even be
a necessary means to prevent the relevant clause or VP from locally invit-
ing a contrastive interpretation that is excluded by the preceding (global)
context (cf. Section 3.1):
14
omitting again/wieder would present the prop-
erty of seeking Philby’s interpretation as something new and, in combina-
tion with the contrastive topic now/jetzt, give rise to the implicature that
Philby’s interpretation was not sought on previous occasions — which is
explicitly contradicted by the preceding context. That is, the connective
explicitly blocks an interpretation that would otherwise be natural at the
local level but lead to incoherence at the discourse level.
(13) a. When the present Soviet leader had arrived at the KGB
as Chairman, Philby had already been there for years and
was considered something of a star. He lectured on the West-
ern intelligence agencies in gen eral and on the British SIS in
particular.
[...].
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 30)
30 C. Fabricius-Hansen
The Chairman, a highly intelligent and cultured man, had
shown a curiosity, short of fascination but above mere interest,
in Britain. Many times, over those years, he had asked Philby
for an interpretati on or analysis of events in Britain, its person-
alities and likely reactions, and Philby had been happy to ob-
lige. It was as if the KGB Chairman wanted to check what
reached his desk from the in-house ‘‘Britain’’ experts and from
those at his old o‰ce, the International Department of the
Central Committee under Boris Ponomarev, against another
critique. Several times he had heeded Philby’s quiet advice on
matters pertaining to Britain.
It had been some time since Philby had seen the new czar of all
the Russias face to face. That was when he had attended a re-
ception to mark the Chairman’s departure from the KGB back
to the Central Committee, apparently as a Secretary, in fact to
prepare for his predecessor’s coming death and to mastermind
his own advancement.
And now he was seeking Philby’s interpretation again. (FF1)
b. [...]
Er hatte damals Philby oft um eine Deutung oder Analyse von
Ereignissen in England gebeten, von wahrscheinlichen Reaktio-
nen seiner fu
¨
hrenden Politiker, [...].
Es war schon fu
¨
nf Jahre her, daß Philby den Zaren aller Rus-
sen von Angesicht zu Angesicht gesehen hatte. Das war im
Mai 1982 gewesen bei einem Empfang anla
¨
ßlich der Ru
¨
ckkehr
des KGB-Chefs zum Zentralkomitee, angeblich als Sekreta
¨
r,
in Wahrheit aber zur Sicherung seines eigenen Aufstiegs nach
Breschnews bevorstehendem Tod.
Und jetzt suchte er wieder Philbys Rat.
The repetitive adverb explicitly signals that the event type described by the
clause containing the adverb is already instantiated in the discourse uni-
verse, as a condition on another discourse referent than the referent it is
ascribed to in the current clau se. Thus, it has a sort of anti-anaphoric
function corresponding to, for example, another in NPs; and from the per-
spective of discourse coherence, it can be as obligatory as such a device.
15
4. Dabei
4.1. Semantics
The connective dabei — whic h occurs in topic position (clause-initially) as
in (15) and in the so-called middle-field as in (14) — consists of an overtly
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 31)
Elusive connectives 31
anaphoric component da ‘there’ combined with the preposition bei ‘with,
at’ (etymologically ¼ En. by). Mostly, it demands an abstract antecedent
as understood by Asher (1993): an eventuality, a proposition, or a fact; cf.
(14)–(15).
16
(14) a. Vor einigen Jahren war ich, wa
¨
hrend einer Turnstunde, vom
Reck gestu
¨
rzt; Sowade hatte mich aufgefangen und sich den
kleinen Finger dabei gebrochen, mir selbst war nichts passiert.
(JUB1)
b. A few years before, I had fallen from the crossbar during P. E.
Sowade had caught me and broken his little finger in the
process.
I was not hurt.
(15) a. Mein Problem ist es oft, nicht fragen zu ko
¨
nnen.
Dabei bestehe ich fast nur aus Fragen. (PH1)
b. Inability to ask questions is often my problem.
And yet I’m made up almost entirely of questions.
As noted by Ko
¨
nig (1995: 62), the meaning of the preposition bei itself is
very unspecific and strongly dependent on contextual enrichment.
17
Used
as a spatial preposition, it situates the referent of its external argument in
a region surrounding the referent of its internal argument. As a constitu-
ent of the connective dabei, bei normally relates entities of a more ab-
stract type; so the region or domain it assigns to the internal argument
(the referent of da-) — and which the referent of the external argument
is situated in — will have to be of a correspondingly abstract kind, for ex-
ample, a ‘‘larger’’ eventuality or a set of (relevant) facts, depending on the
nature of the arguments.
When the antecedent referent is an eventuality, dabei anchors the exter-
nal eventuality argument, that is, the referen t introduced by the modified
verb projection, temporal ly and spatially in the antecedent referent; that
is, it does not introduce a new reference or topic time or a new indepen-
dent eventuality, but rather adds to the descripti on of the eventuality in-
troduced by the antecedent, specifying, for example, an ‘‘accompanying
circumstance’’ or the like; cf. (14). In a context like this, dabei establishes
a coherence relation between the relevant discourse segments. When the
referents related by bei are propositions (including facts) or maybe illo-
cutionary acts rather than eventualities, as in (15), we have to do with a
rhetorical relation rather than a coherence relation, as defined by Asher
(1993):
Some discourse relations segment a discourse on the basis of the rhetorical func-
tion of particular propositions in relation to propositions already established in
the structure. These relations are called rhetorical relations. [...] Other discourse
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 32)
32 C. Fabricius-Hansen
relations segment the discourse on the basis of relations between the eventualities
introduced within the constituents. These relations are called coherence relations
(Asher 1993: 264).
Unlike rhetorical relations, which are paradigmatically about constituents and
only sometimes directly contribute to the truth conditions of these constituents,
coherence relations [ . . . ] typically directly contribute to the truth conditional con-
tent of the constituents themselves (Asher 1993: 265).
As a rhetorical discourse marker, dabei is preferably found in clause-
initial position.
4.2. Data
Dabei di¤ers from wieder in one important sense: it has no lexical coun-
terpart in English or Norwegian, that is, neither language has a lexical
connective with a similarly unspecific meaning. This can be seen from
the fact that its translation images in English cover the whole range from
simple adversative or concessive connect ives over anaphoric prepositional
phrases and converb construction s to subordinate temporal clauses (cf.
Section 1), and similarly for Norwegian; cf. Table 9.
Since dabei may occur together with clause-initial connect ives, for ex-
ample, the coordinate conjunction und ‘and,’ and such connectives in
their turn may be omitted or added under translation (Altenberg 1999),
there will be borderline cases that do not render themselves easily to the
explicit vs. zero categorization. I have chosen not to register the coordi-
nate conjunct and/og alone as an explicit counterpart of dabei . Apart
from and/og, English or Norwegian connectives that have no other coun-
terpart in the German parallel text are categorized as explicit counter-
parts of dabei, if it makes sense from a semantic–pragmatic point of view.
Altenberg (1999) has suggested that not having a ‘‘natural’’ lexical
equivalent could be one of the factors favoring omission of a connective
under translation. Consequently, one would expect dabei to exhibit a
higher zero ratio than wieder. This is confirmed by my data: as can
be seen from Tables 10 and 11, dabei is even more elusive than wieder.
Thus, the zero ratio for source text dabei amounts to more than 50%
in English translation and little less than 40% in Norwegian target texts
(Tables 10 and 11, row 1); some examples are given in (16)–(18).
(16) a. [ ...] ein schwarza
¨
ugiger, braunha
¨
utiger Halbwu
¨
chsiger kam
in Begleitung eines ihm a
¨
hnlichen Kindes zur Tu
¨
r herein und
tauschte an der Theke eine große leere Weinflasche gegen eine
volle um; dabei stellte er das Kind als seinen Onkel vor. (PH1)
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 33)
Elusive connectives 33
Table 9. English and Norwegian translation images of dabei
Category Examples
Simple clause-initial connective
/ conjunction (A and/og)
(and) yet, but, however
thus
moreover
men ‘but’,
allikevel ‘however’
selv om, skjønt
‘although’
Spatial connective adverb
(clause initial or noninitial)
here her ‘here’
Temporal connective adverb
(clause initial or noninitial)
na
˚
‘now’, da ‘then’
samtidig ‘at the same time’
Instrumental connective adverb dermed, derved ‘with that’
derigjennom ‘through that’
PP containing an abstract
anaphor or definite description
in (all) this, at this
activity,
in this situation,
in the process
i denne forbindelse ‘in this
connection’
under denne processen
‘under this process’
i den anledning ‘on this
occasion’
Prepositional (in/by) ing-
construction with anaphoric
predicate
in doing so, in so doing,
by doing so
[No structural equivalent
to ing-constructions in
Norwegian]
Prepositional (in/by) ing-
construction with ‘‘full’’
predicate
in hurrying to the end of
the bridge
Temporal clause (as/when/
while) with anaphoric predicate
as I did so, when he did it,
while he is at it
mens sa
˚
skjer ‘while so
happens’
Temporal clause (as/while)
with ‘‘full’’ predicate
and as I breathed
while the boy was talking
mens unggutten la ut
‘while the boy was
talking’
Table 10. Dabei translated into (!) and from ( ) English
Explicit Zero Total
1. ! En 52 (47.67%) 57 (52.3%) 109 (100%)
2. En 31 (28.2%) 79 (71.8%) 110 (100%)
Table 11. Dabei translated into (!) and from ( ) Norwegian
Explicit Zero Total
1. ! No 75 (62.5%) 45 (37.5%) 120 (100%)
2. No 19 (45.2%) 23 (54.8%) 42 (100%)
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 34)
34 C. Fabricius-Hansen
b. A black-eyed, brown-skinned adolescent came in with a child
who looked like him, and went to the bar, where he exchanged
a large empty wine bottle for a full one. He introduced the child
as his uncle [...].
c. Det bor en del mennesker fra sydligere egner her ogsa
˚
:en
sortøyet, mørkhudet fremslenging kom inn i følge med en gut-
tunge som var ganske lik ham; borte ved disken fikk de en stor
flaske vin i bytte for tomflasken; den største gutten fortalte at
den minste var hans onkel.
‘The bigger boy told that the smaller one was his uncle.’
(17) a. Sind Sie schon einmal im Wald [...] ausgerutscht und haben
dabei durch die Laubschicht am Boden in einen vermoderten
Baumstrunk gegri¤en? (PH1)
‘Have you ever lost your footing in the woods [...] and have
dabei grabbed through the underbush into a rotting tree trunk?’
b. Did you ever lose your footing in the woods [...] and reach
through the underbrush to grab a rotting tree trunk?
c. Har De noen gang vært pa
˚
skogstur [...] ogglidd og tatt Dem
for og fa
˚
tt tak i en ra
˚
tten trelegg under løvet pa
˚
bakken?
‘Have you ever been on a picknick [...] and lost your footing
and reached out and got hold of a rotting tree trunk under the
leaves on the ground?’
(18) a. Sie las dann, bequem auf ein Sofa ausgestreckt, ein oder zwei
Stunden, bis es an der Zeit war, das Mittagsmahl einzunehmen.
Dabei vermied sie die weit verbreitete Gewohnheit werdender
Mu
¨
tter, sich vom lebhaften Appetit verleiten zu lassen und fu
¨
r
zwei zu essen. (EHA1)
b. Then she read, stretched out comfortably on a sofa for one or
two hours until it was tim e to eat lunch, ignoring the common
custom of an expectant mother following her appetite and eating
for two.
Once again, there is a fairly high correlation between the two target lan-
guages as far as the choice between explicit and zero translations is con-
cerned: 38 of 52 (¼ 73%) explicit translations in English correspond to ex-
plicit translations in Norwegian where they represent 57% of the explicit
translations; that is, the English target texts di¤er from the Norwegian
target texts most conspicuously by preferring a zero solution in almost
half of the cases where Norwegian chooses an explicit translation of
dabei; cf. Table 12.
As shown in Tables 10 and 11, row 2, target text dabei exhibits a higher
zero ratio than source text dabei: more than 70% and 50% with respect
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 35)
Elusive connectives 35
to English and Norwegian source texts, respectively. It should, however,
be noted that 25 (22.7%) of the 110 target text clauses or VPs containing
dabei translate English ing-adjuncts; and all of them fall under the zero
category, thus representing 31.6% of that category.
18
In fact, clause or
VP coordination with dabei in the second conjunct, as in (19), seems to
be a kind of standard translation alternative for free ing-adjuncts describ-
ing an ‘‘accompanying circumstance.’’
(19) a. He raises his hands in mock defence (beautiful, long fingers,
she immediately notices, wondering whether he is conscious of
it too). (ABR1)
b. In gespieltem Entsetzen hebt er die Ha
¨
nde (wunderscho
¨
ne,
lange Finger, wie sie sofort bemerkt und sich dabei u
¨
berlegt,
ob er sich dessen gleichfalls bewußt ist).
‘. . . as she immediately notices and dabei wonders whether . . .’
c. Han løfter hendene til forsvar pa
˚
fleip (vakre, lange fingre, ser
hun straks, mens hun undres pa
˚
om han ogsa
˚
er klar over det).
‘. . . she immediately notices, while she wonders whether . . .’
Norwegian — like German — has nothing corresponding to the English
ing-construction. This structural di¤erence between English and Norwe-
gian may be partly responsible for the fact that zero correspondencies
for dabei are found with considerably lower frequency in translations
from Norwegian than in translations from English (50% vs. 70%).
4.3. Discussion
Generalizing our findings in Section 3.3, we expect that
(a) dabei will get an explicit translation in English and Norwegian
target texts when the discourse relation expressed by dabei —
that is, the coherence relation accompanying circumstance (in a
broad sense) or a related rhetorical relation — cannot otherwise
be established with reaso nable certainty and e‰ciency in the given
target context; and, conversely, that
Table 12. Dabei translated into English and Norwegian
Source text dabei ! English Norwegian
Explicit Zero
Total
! Norwegian Explicit 38 29 67
Zero 14 27 41
English Total 52 56 108
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 36)
36 C. Fabricius-Hansen
(b) dabei tends to occur in translations from English or Norwegian
when the relevant discourse relation is explicitly encoded or can
be inferred in the source text but cannot otherwise be established
with reasonable certainty and e‰ciency in the given German
target context.
On the other hand, we also expect that
(c) dabei may be quite redundant in the source text, and that
(d) dabei sometimes is added in target texts without being necessary
in order to establish the intended interpretation.
On the whole, my data seem to confirm these hypotheses. It should, how-
ever, be added that clause-initial dabei may also be motivated from a
clause-internal processing perspective, viz. as a device to attain a ‘‘bal-
anced information distribution’’ by placing the subject in clause-medial
position (Doherty 2002, 2003).
In what follows, we shall look more closely at some examples that illus-
trate the points made above.
(20) and (21) are examples of type (a): if dabei or its translation image
are left out in (20), one might understand the second sentence as an expla-
nation for the fact established in the first sentence, that is, one might infer
the discourse relation Explanation rather than link the second sentence
to the first at the eventuality level, as describ ing an accompanying cir-
cumstance; and (21) would seem incoherent without the connective or its
translation.
(20) a. They were subjected to tests of courage and had to demon-
strate their fighting skills. In all this a strict code of honor
was enforced.
b. Dem werdenden Macho wurden Mutproben und Schauka
¨
mpfe
abverlangt. Dabei mußte ein strikter Ehrenkodex eingehalten
werden. (HME1)
c. Av den kommende macho ble det krevd prøver pa
˚
mot og opp-
visningskamper. Her ma
˚
tte en strikt æreskodeks overholdes.
‘Here a strict code of honor had to be kept.’
(21) a. Mein Problem ist es oft, nicht fragen zu ko
¨
nnen.
Dabei bestehe ich fast nur aus Fragen. (PH1)
b. Inability to ask questions is often my problem.
And yet I’m made up almost entirely of questions.
c. Det er et problem for meg, dette at jeg ofte ikke er istand til a
˚
stille spørsma
˚
l. Og sa
˚
jeg, som i grunnen ikke har stort annet
enn spørsma
˚
l i meg!
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 37)
Elusive connectives 37
‘It is a problem for me, the fact (lit. ‘this’) that I often am not
able to ask questions. And then I, who in reality has not much
else than questions in me.’
In (22), the presence of dabei ensures that the state described in the past
tense relative clause is not temporally anchored in the immediately pre-
ceding main clause but rather in the independent sentence to the left of
that. In the English target text the same e¤ect is conveyed by other
means, viz. the past perfect of the relative clause whereas the No rwegian
target text uses both devices: past perfect combined with the anaphoric
temporal connective da ‘then, at that time’ as an explicit counterpart of
dabei.
(22) a. Die Mutter war in ihrer Jugend o
¨
fters auf einem Schlitten nach
Ruma
¨
nien hinu
¨
bergefahren, sie zeigte mir die warmen Pelze,
in die sie dabei eingepackt war. (EC1)
b. In her youth, Mother had often ridden a sleigh all the way over
to Rumania, she showed me the warm furs she had been
bundled in.
c. I sin ungdom hadde mor ofte kjørt over til Romania med
slede, hun viste meg de varme pelsene hun hadde vært pakket
inn i da.
Example (23) (¼ 17), on the other hand, illustrates case (c): the German
sentence would probably get the same (preferred) interpretation even
without dabei; and both target texts leave the connective untranslated.
19
But as with redundant restitutive wieder, German native speakers would
probably find the version without the connective less felicitous (cf. com-
ments to [9] and [10], Section 3.3).
(23) a. Sind Sie schon einmal im Wald [...] ausgerutscht und haben
dabei durch die Laubschicht am Boden in einen vermoderten
Baumstrunk gegri¤en? (PH1)
‘Have you ever lost your footing in the woods [...] and have
dabei grabbed through the underbush into a rotting tree trunk?’
b. Did you ever lose your footing in the woods [...] and reach
through the und erbrush to grab a rotting tree trunk?
As far as target text dabei is concerned, case (b), tha t is, nonoptionality
of target text dabei, can be illustrated by (24)–(25): dabei is necessary in
order to establish the relation of simultaneity expressed by the phrasal
connective and the preposition with in the source texts.
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 38)
38 C. Fabricius-Hansen
(24) a. In eating the plants we combine the carbohydrates with oxygen
dissolved in our blood because of our penchant for breathing
air, and so extract the energy that make s us go.
In the process we exh ale carbon dioxide, which the plants then
recycle to make more carbohydrates. (CSA1)
b. Das heißt, wir essen die Pflanzen, um die Kohlenhydrate mit
Sauersto¤ zu verbrennen, der aufgrund unserer Veranlagung,
Luft zu atmen, in unserem Blut gelo
¨
st ist, und gewinnen so die
erforderliche Betriebsenergie.
Dabei atmen wir Kohlendioxid aus, das die Pflanzen wiederum
in einem Recycling-Prozeß in Kohlenhydrate umwandeln.
(CSA1TD)
(25) a. ‘‘Certainly,’’ said Jack, with a small incline of the head. (ST1)
b. ‘‘Aber sicher,’’ sagte Jack und neigte dabei leicht den Kopf.
‘. . . said Jack und inclined dabei his head.’
(26) is another example of dabei blocking a sequential interpretation
which might otherwise be natural. Here, the connective has no explicit
counterpart in the source text; but it is triggered by the continuative ‘‘aux-
iliary’’ keep which has a comparable anchoring e¤ect.
(26) a. The boy took the money in his left hand, scooping it up,
shoveling it into a canvas bag strapped round his hips.
He kept the gun, the toy gun, trained on Sharon Fraser . (RR1)
b. Der junge Typ nahm das Geld mit der Linken, schob es zu
einem Ha
¨
ufchen zusammen und verstaute es in einer Leinenta-
sche, die er um die Taille ha
¨
ngen hatte.
Dabei ziel te er mit der Wa¤e, dem Spielzeugrevolver, auf
Sharon Fraser.
‘Dabei pointed he with the weapon . . . at Sharon Fraser.’
In (27), similarly, omitting dabei in the German translation would prefer-
ably be understood as des cribing an event sequence whereas the source
text is more open to a nonseq uential interpretation.
(27) a. ‘‘I’d like to hear more,’’ she says quietly, leaning over to stub
out her cigarette in the heavy ceramic ashtray on the floor.
Her arm touches his knee; she quickly glances in his direction,
but he doesn’t seem to have noticed. (ABR1)
b. ‘‘Ich wu
¨
rde gern davon ho
¨
ren,’’ sagt sie ruhig und beugt sich
vor, um ihre Zigarette in dem schweren Keramikaschenbecher
auf dem Boden auszudru
¨
cken.
Dabei streift sie mit dem Arm sein Knie; sie blickt rasch zu ihm
hin, doch scheint er es nicht bemerkt zu haben.
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 39)
Elusive connectives 39
(28), finally, shows that dabei may also be quite redundantly added in
translations; cf. (d) above.
(28) a. Righteously, mercilessly, he weeded out the passive voice.
The e¤ort of typ ing made the corners of his mouth turn down,
so that no one could have guessed how much he was enjoying
himself. (AT1)
b. Gerecht und unbarmherzig merzte er das Passivum aus.
Die Anstrengung des Tippens zog ihm die Mundwinkel herab,
so daß kein Mensch vermutet ha
¨
tte, wie gut er sich dabei
unterhielt.
As a marker of coherence at the lower, truth-conditional level (see Section
4.1), a main function of dabei is to prevent the narrative from ‘‘moving
forward’’: th e eventuality introduced in the modified clause or VP is pre-
sented as overlapping or at least abutting the anteceden t eventuality
rather than as completely following it. Thus, it blocks a sequential read-
ing (‘‘perfective viewpoint’’ according to Smith [1997]) in syndetic and
asyndetic paratactical constructions where such a reading would other-
wise be preferred due to the inherent aspectual propert ies (‘‘aktionsart’’)
of the modified VPs: (19) and (24)–(25). In such contexts, the typical
English target and, in particular, source construction seems to be an ing-
adjunct — not very surprisingly in view of its progressive aspect and
normal discourse functions (Behrens 1999; Kortmann 1995). In fact, VP-
coordination with dabei may be a kind of standard translational option
expressing accompanying circumstance; cf. (29)–(32) in addition to the
examples mentioned above.
20
Norwegian has no progressive and no converb construction corre-
sponding to the free ing-adjunct. But it also lacks a lexical equivalent of
German dabei. As a consequence of that, we find a series of di¤erent Nor-
wegian target constructions corresponding to ing-adjuncts in English and
dabei-coordination in German: coordination with an explicit connective
(29), subordinate clauses expressing simultaneity (30) (¼ [19]), free parti-
cipial adjuncts (31), and prepositional adjuncts with med ‘with’ þ eventive
noun; cf. (32).
(29) a. Ich habe dieselbe Ru
¨
ckenhaltung, sagte ich mir. Unbewe-
glich verglich ich meinen Ru
¨
cken mit dem Ru
¨
cken meines
Großvaters und ich dachte dabei an eine ganz bestimmte Foto-
grafie, die nur ein Jahr vor dem Tod meines Großvaters ge-
macht worden ist. (TBE1)
b. I have the same posture, I told myself. Without moving I
compared my own back with my grandfather’s, thinking of a
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 40)
40 C. Fabricius-Hansen
particular photograph that had been taken only a year before
his death.
c. Jeg har den samme ryggholdningen, sa jeg til meg selv. Ubeve-
gelig sammenlignet jeg ryggen min med ryggen til min bestefar
og jeg tenkte da pa
˚
et ganske bestemt fotografi som var tatt
bare et a
˚
r fø r min bestefars død.
‘. . . and I thought then/ at that time of . . .’
(30) a. He raises his hands in mock defence (beautiful, long fingers,
she immediately notices, wondering whether he is conscious of
it too). (ABR1)
b. In gespieltem Entsetzen hebt er die Ha
¨
nde (wunderscho
¨
ne,
lange Finger, wie sie sofort bemerkt und sich dabei u
¨
berlegt,
ob er sich dessen gleichfalls bewußt ist).
‘. . . as she immediately notices and dabei wonders whether . . .’
c. Han løfter hendene til forsvar pa
˚
fleip (vakre, lange fingre,
ser hun straks, mens hun undres pa
˚
om han ogsa
˚
er klar over
det).
‘. . . she immediately notices, while she wonders whether . . .’
(31) a. I went through a compound, came out at the housefront, and
found him there, waiting.
He pursued me, raving in grotesque languages. (BO1)
b. Ich ging durch einen Compou nd, kam auf der Vorderseite
der Ha
¨
user wieder heraus, und dort wartete er schon auf
mich.
Er verfolgte mich und phantasierte dabei in grotesken Spra-
chen.
c. Jeg gikk gjennom en compound, kom ut pa
˚
forsiden av huset
og sa
˚
ham sta
˚
der og vente.
Han forfulgte meg, bablende pa
˚
groteske spra
˚
k.
‘He pursued me, rave.PA RT.PRES. in grotesque languages.’
(32) a. She had even been thinking as she raced home that if Bert
turned out to be one of the men that Jasper attached himself
to, as had happened before, like a younger brother, showing
a hungry need that made her heart ache for him, then he
wouldn’t be o¤ on his adventures. (DL2)
b. [...], daß Bert zu den Ma
¨
nnern geho
¨
rte, die Jasper wie ein
ju
¨
ngerer Bruder verehrte [...] und dabei soviel Hunger und
Verlangen erkennen ließ, daß es Alice seinetwegen schwer ums
Herz wurde.
‘. . . that Bert belonged to the men that Jasper admired like a
younger brother und dabei showed so much hunger and need
that . . .’
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 41)
Elusive connectives 41
c. [...] at Bert var en mann av den typen Jasper kunne slutte seg
til, som en slags lillebror og med en hunger etter a
˚
bli godtatt
som fikk hjertet hennes til a
˚
verke av medlidenhet.
‘. . . that Bert was a man of the type Jasper might attach him-
self to, like a kind of younger brother and with a hunger for
being accepted that . . .’
Quite often, however, the Norwegian target text has a simple coordinate
structure without any connective in the second conjunct, inviting a se-
quential reading that is ruled out in the English and German parallel texts
(33).
(33) a. He smiled slyly, nodding. (WB1)
b. Er la
¨
chelte verstohlen und nickte dabei.
c. Han smilte litt lurt og nikket.
‘He smiled slyly and nodded.’
For the reasons mentioned above, one might suspect that Norwegian par-
atactic structures are more often undetermined between a seq uential and
a nonsequential reading than is th e case in German; or, alternatively, that
nonparatactic structures are preferred under condit ions where a paratac-
tic dabei-construction is natural in German. Conversely, since German
has at its disposal a connective that explicitly blocks a sequential reading,
its absence may have the e¤ect of pushing the interpretation in the oppo-
site direction, inviting a sequential reading when possible (‘‘pragmatic
strengthening,’’ cf. Levinson 2000). This is a subject for further research,
however.
5. Conclusion and outlook
As mentioned in the introduction, the present article does not pretend
to be more than an explorative empirical study. There is, of course, a lot
more to be done, empirically and theoretically; in fact, I have barely
scratched the surface of the subject matter. But I hope to have made the
following points.
As far as methodology is concer ned, corpus-based, multilingual trans-
lation comparison may function as an eye-opener in the study of connec-
tives in general and elusive connectives in particular (cf. also Altenberg
1999, 2002; Fretheim and Johansson 2002; Sæbø 2003, 2004).
As for empirical results, our study has s hown that one and the same
anaphoric or presupposition triggering connective may be more or less
indispensable vs. redundant, depending on whether or how easily the
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 42)
42 C. Fabricius-Hansen
particular variety of discourse coherence correlated with its use in the
given context may be inferred or implicated anyway . Thus, although the
connective may not be strictly necessary in order to arrive at the interpre-
tation triggered by its presence, it may be preferable because it eliminates
ambiguity, reduces underterminacy, or prevents incoherence — or garden
path e¤ects — by blocking an interpretation that would otherwise be nat-
ural at the local (sentence) level but lead to incoherence at the (global)
level of discourse interp retation.
We have also seen that language-specific properties in the domains of ,
for example, aspectual system, word order, and focus assignm ent may
make a connective (more) indispensable in one language under conditions
where its counterpart is (more) redundant in the other langu age.
Undoubtedly, these circumstances, in addition to the fact that da bei
has no lexical counterpart in English, go a long way to explain the results
obtained for dabei with respect to English (see Section 4.2). However, my
findings indicate that this is not the who le story, that is, that structural
contrasts and lexical asymmetry cannot alone account for the elusiveness
of dabei and, in particular, wieder with respect to English and Norwegian.
In addition, we may have to do with di¤erent stylistic preferences or
di¤erent weighting of relevant constraints, including preferences or con-
straints of a prosodic nature that have not been taken into account here.
Thus, simplifying very much, English and German would seem to adhere
to the strategies described in (i) and (ii), respectively, as far as coherence
in the temporal domain and the domain of eventualities is concerned; and
perhaps (ii) has less weight in Norwegian than in German.
21
(i) If the informational e¤ect of using the connective is rather low,
then don’t use it. (‘‘Be brief!’’)
(ii) If using the connective is more informative than not using it, then
use it! (‘‘Be precise!’’)
These two strategies can be subsumed under what has come to be known
as the R- or I-principle (relevance, informativeness) and the Q-principle
(quantity), respectively (Horn 1984; Blutner 2000):
(iii) R-/I-principle: Say no more than you must (given Q)!
(iv) Q-principle: Say as much as you can (given R/I)!
The R-/I-principle is based on speaker’s economy. It selects the most
coherent or strongest interpretation compatible with what is a minimum
of linguistic material, that is, in our case zero as opposed to an explicit
connective. The Q-principle, on the other hand, ‘‘acts as a blocking mech-
anism and blocks all the outputs [interpretation possibilities] that can be
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 43)
Elusive connectives 43
derived more economically from an alternative linguistic input’’ (Blutner
2000: 198), the alternative to a connective being no connective (i.e. zero).
That is, the Q-principle represents hearer’s economy — or speake r’s need
to convey his or her message fully: using a connective restricts the set of
interpretations to be considered, thus making it easier for the hearer to
arrive at the intended interpretation.
Summarizing, we conclude that a connective is redundant from the
perspective of speaker’s economy if the following conditions are
fulfilled:
a. The interpretation t assigned to the sentence containing the con-
nective in the given context is a possible interpretation of the zero
alternative in the given context as well.
b. The hearer will most likely assign t to the zero alternative anyhow,
given the R/I-principle.
Whether or to what extent a connective is in fact redundant in a given
context depends on the semantics of the connective itself, on the one
hand, and properties of the intra- and extrasentential context it oc-
curs in, on the other hand. As we have seen, ease of presupposition
justification and anaphoric resolution play an important role in this
respect: redundancy is negatively correlated with the amount of contex-
tual enrichment (accommodation, bridging) needed in order to link the
connective to the preceding context in an appropriate way (see Section
3.3).
But even when fairly redundant in view of the R-/I-principle, the
connective will be well motivated in view of the Q-principle: by explicitly
pointing backward, linking the relevant sentence to the preceding context,
it will guide the hearer directly, without detour, towards the most coher-
ent interpretation of the discourse processed thus far.
Our conclusion seems to be accordance with the relevance theoretic
view on discourse markers — included connectives — referred to in the
Introduction (Section 1). At the same time, however, the discussion above
suggests that the bidirectional optimality theoretic setting outlined by
Blutner (2000), by explicitly splitting the governing principle into two
opposite principles that both conversational partners have to take into ac-
count, may represent a still more promising theoretical framework for
further research in this area.
Received 27 March 2003 Oslo University
Revised version received
22 September 2003
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 44)
44 C. Fabricius-Hansen
Notes
1. This article is based partly on joint work with Bergljot Behrens (see Fabricius-Hansen
and Behrens 2001). In addition, I have profited from discussions with Kjell Johan Sæbø
and Torgrim Solstad. I also thank two anonymous referees for useful recommenda-
tions. Correspondence address: Germanistik institutt avd.A., Postboks 1004, Blindern,
N-0315 Oslo 3, Norway. E-mail: c.f.hansen@german.uio.no.
2. See [http:// www.hf.uio.no/german/sprik/english] and Johansson (1998) for details
concerning corpus design.
3. Ko
¨
nig et al. (1990).
4. Fretheim (i.p.).
5. Unless otherwise indicated, the examples below are taken from the OMC (see Section
1). In each case, the original version is given under (a). The source text is identified by
the abbreviation used in the OMC.
6. See Fabricius-Hansen (2001), Klein (2001), Ja
¨
ger and Blutner (2003), Pittner (2003),
and von Stechow (2003) for recent discussions; cf. also Bierwisch (2003).
7. Or procedural in relevance theoretic terms; cf. Fretheim (i.p.).
8. Huitink (2003) assigns the precedence condition on the presupposed and asserted in-
stantiations of ‘‘this’’ to the assertion rather than the presupposition; and Sæbø (2003,
2004) argues that additive particles, when associated with a topic, add the presupposed
alternative to the topic of the assertion, creating an ‘‘aggregate topic’’ (see also Reis
and Rosengren 1997). In either case, however, the information bit that is added to
the assertion is already in the context, given an anaphoric account of presuppositions.
Thus it seems redundant from a truth-functional point of view. But being part of
the assertion, as opposed to something that merely has to be justified in the preceding
context, the added bit of information can influence the conversational implicatures to
be drawn from the sentence in the given context (Sæbø 2003, 2004) — as suggested by
Blakemore (cf. Section 1).
9. See Ko
¨
nig et al. (1990) and Fretheim (i.p.), in addition to the titles mentioned in Note
6. As pointed out by Fretheim (i.p., Sections 7 and 8), there are two other uses of igjen,
with the meaning of ‘shut’ and ‘left (over)’ (German u
¨
brig), that are neither repetitive
nor restitutive. These variants seem compatible with the more general semantic picture
of wieder/again presented in Fabricius-Hansen (2001).
10. Altenberg (1999: 254) defines the mutual correspondence (MC) of items in two lan-
guages as the frequency with which they are translated into each other, to be calculated
by means of the formula ððA
t
þ B
t
Þ100Þ : ðA
s
þ B
s
Þ, where A
t
; B
t
and A
s
; B
s
are the
compared items in the target and source texts, respectively. In the trilingual corpora of
the OMC (see Section 1), the MC is only approximately 50% for wieder compared to
again, and around 62% for the two other pairs (wieder : igjen and again: igjen).
11. The prefix re-, however, is not exclusively constitutive (Fretheim i.p.).
12. The Norwegian (source- and target-text) data include igjen-variants that do not fit into
the restitutive–repetitive pattern (see Note 9). They have all been registered as having
nonzero counterparts. If they are excluded from the data, zero ratios involving igjen
will go up somewhat since the registered number of zero correspondencies will repre-
sent a higher percentage of the total number of igjen tokens.
13. The zero ratio for igjen English is higher than 10% but in this case the result is not
corroborated by igjen ! English (8.2%), indicating that ‘‘translationese’’ may have
played a role here.
14. Cf. Dimroth (forthcoming), Sæbø (2003, 2004).
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 45)
Elusive connectives 45
15. In my data, there are 21 cases of target text wieder corresponding to another in the
source text; cf. (5).
16. See Krause (2002: 35f.) for exceptions.
17. See also Fabricius-Hansen (1999).
18. Interestingly, free ing-adjuncts represent only 10% of the zero correspondencies in
English target texts; cf. (18).
19. (16) may seem a similar case; but di¤erent from the source text, the target texts are
both open for a sequential interpretation of the described eventualities.
20. As mentioned in Section 4.2, I have registered ing-adjuncts as zero correspondencies
unless they contain some lexical or phrasal translational image of dabei. If we subtract
the 25 ing-sources from the 79 zero correspondencies in Table 10, we are left with 54
(¼ 49%), that is, less than in Norwegian in translations from Norwegian (53.4%, cf.
Table 11).
21. In the end, of course, this means that social conventions di¤er somewhat between the
three language communities.
References
Altenberg, Bengt (1999). Adverbial connectors in English and Swedish. In Out of Corpora.
Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, H. Hasselga
˚
rd and S. Oksefjell (eds.), 249–268. Am-
sterdam: Rodopi.
— (2002). Concessive connectors in English and Swedish discourse. In Information Structure
in a Cross-linguistic Perspective, H. Hasselga
˚
rd et al. (eds.), 21–44. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Asher (1993).
Behrens (1999).
Bierwisch, Manfred (2003). Heads, complements, adjuncts: projection and saturation. In
Modifying Adjuncts, E. Lang et al. (eds.), 113–159. Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Blakemore, Diane (1992). Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blutner, Reinhard (2000). Some Aspects of Optimality in Natural Language Interpretation.
Journal of Semantics 17, 189–216.
Dimroth, Christine (forthcoming). Fokuspartikeln und Informationsgliederung im Deutschen.
Studien zur deutschen Grammatik. Tu
¨
bingen: Stau¤enburg.
Doherty, Monika (ed.) (1999). Sprachspezifische Aspekte der Informationsverteilung. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag.
— (2002). Language Processing in Discourse. London: Routledge.
— (2003). Parameterized beginnings of sentences in English and German. Linguistische Be-
richte 194, aaa–aaa.
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine (1999). Bei dieser Gelegenheit — on this occasion — ved denne
anledningen. German bei — a puzzle in translational perspective. In Out of Corpora.
Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, H. Hasselga
˚
rd and S. Oksefjell (eds.), 231–248. Am-
sterdam: Rodopi.
— (2001). Wi(e)der and Again(st). In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim
von Stechow, Studia grammatica 52, C. Fe
´
ry and W. Sternefeld (eds.), 101– 130. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag.
— ; and Behrens, Bergljot (2001). Elaboration and related discourse relations viewed from an
interlingual perspective. In Proceedings from the Workshop on Text Structure, University
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 46)
46 C. Fabricius-Hansen
of Austin, October 2000, C. Smith (ed.), aaa–aaa. Also as SPRIKreport Nr. 13 [http://
www.hf.uio.no/german/sprik/publikasjoner.shtml].
Fretheim, Thorstein (i.p.). A relevance-theoretic account of the way we use and understand the
English temporal adverb again and its Norwegian counterpart igjen. Languages in Contrast.
— ; and Johansson, Stig (2002). The semantics and pragmatics of the Norwegian conces-
sive marker likevel: Evidence from the English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus. In From the
COLT’s Mouth . . . and Others’. Language Corpora Studies in Honor of Anna-Brita Sten-
stro
¨
m, L. E. Breivik and A. Hasselgren (eds.), 81–101. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Haspelmath, Martin; and Ko
¨
nig, Ekkehard (eds.) (1995). Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Per-
spective. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hasselga
˚
rd, Hilde; Johansson, Stig; Behrens, Bergljot; and Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine
(2002). Information Structure in a Cross-linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Horn, Lawrence R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference. Q-based
and R-based implicature. In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications,
D. Schi¤rin (ed.), 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Huitink, Janneke (2003). We cannot have pizza again.InProceedings of the ESSLLI03
Workshop. The Meaning and Implementation of Discourse Particles, M. Stede and H. Zee-
vat (eds.), aaa–aaa. aaaa: aaaa.
Ja
¨
ger, Gerhard; and Blutner, Reinhard (2003). Competition and interpretation: the German
adverb wieder (‘again’). In Modifying Adjuncts, E. Lang, C. Maienborn, and C. Fabricius-
Hansen (eds.), 393–416. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
— ; and Blutner, Reinhard (i.p.).
Johansson, Stig (1998). On the role of corpora in cross-linguistic research. In Corpora and
Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, Method, and Case Studies, S. Johansson and S. Oksef-
jell (eds.), 3–24. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Klein, Wolfgang (2001). Time and Again. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for
Arnim von Stechow, Studia grammatica 52, C. Fe
´
ry and W. Sternefeld (eds.), 267–286.
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Kortmann, Bernd (1995). Adverbial participial clauses in English. In Converbs in Cross-
Linguistic Perspective, M. Haspelmath and E. Ko
¨
nig (eds.), 189–238. Berlin and New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ko
¨
nig, Ekkehard (1995). The meaning of converb constructions. In Converbs in Cross-
Linguistic Perspective, M. Haspelmath and E. Ko
¨
nig (eds.), 57–96. Berlin and New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
— ; Stark, Detlef; and Requardt, Susanne (1990). Adverbien und Partikeln. Ein deutsch-
englisches Wo
¨
rterbuch. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.
Krause, Maxi (2002). BEI pre
´
position, e
´
le
´
ment constitutif de particules diverse et particule
verbale. Cahier du CRISCO (Centre de Recherches Interlangues sur la Signification en
Contexte UMR 6170) no 10 Section 3. Universite
´
de Caen.
Lehmann, Christian (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Clause Combining
in Grammar and Discourse, Typological Studies in Language 18, J. Haiman and S. A.
Thompson (eds.), 181–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levinson, Stephen C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversa-
tional Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pittner, Karin (2003). Process, eventuality, and wieder/again.InModifying Adjuncts,E.
Lang et al. (eds.), 365–391. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Reis and Rosengren (1997).
Smith, Carlota S. (1997). The Parameter of Aspect. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sæbø, Kjell Johan (1997). Handout from paper presented at the 19th Jahrestagung der
Deutschen Gesellschaft fu
¨
r Sprachwissenschaft, AG 12. University of Oslo.
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 47)
Elusive connectives 47
— (2003). On the quantity and quality of contexts in discourse semantics. In Proceedings of
the Chicago Linguistic Society 39, Panel on Quantitative Approaches to Theoretical Issues.
aaaa (ed.), aaa–aaa. Chicago: CLS.
— (2004). Conversational contrast and conventional parallel: topic implicatures and addi-
tive presuppositions. Journal of Semantics (Special Issue on Contrast in Discourse) 21,
199–217.
von Stechow, Arnim (2003). How are results represented and modified? Remarks on Ja
¨
ger
and Blutner’s anti-decomposition. In Modifying Adjuncts, E. Lang et al. (eds.), 417–451.
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
von Stutterheim, Christiane (1997). Einige Prinzipien des Textaufbaus. Empirische Untersu-
chungen zur Produktion mu
¨
ndlicher Texte.Tu
¨
bingen: Niemeyer.
Thompson, Sandra A.; and Longacre, Robert E. (1985). Adverbial clauses. In Language
Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 2: Complex Constructions, T. Shopen (ed.),
171–234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zeevat, Henk (2003). Particles: presuposition triggers or context markers. Draft. [http://
cf.hum.uva.nl/computerlinguistiek/henk/henkPUB.html].
(V7(M) 4/10/04 13:08) WDG/G J-1176 Linguistics, 43:1 PMU: WSL(W) 2/10/2004 Times_M (0).3.04.05 (148225mm) pp. 17–48 002_P (p. 48)
48 C. Fabricius-Hansen
