Bezeichnung für die >Modalität von

Bezeichnung für die >Modalität von Sätzen.

Nach E. Stenius (1967) hat jeder Satz zwei semantische Aspekte, ein Satzradikal und einen >Modus. Das Satzradikal ist der wahrheitsfunktionale Inhalt eines Satzes, seine Proposition, und lässt sich in einer wahrheitswertfunktionalen Semantik erfassen, der >Modus eines Satzes zeigt den Typ des Sprechaktes an und ist im Rahmen bestimmter Sprachspiele beschreibbar.

In den meisten Sprachen bilden >Deklarative, Interrogativ (>Fragesatz) und >Direktive (>Imperativ) den Kernbestand der Satzmodi, zu welchem weitere Satzmodi wie Exklamativ (>Exklamativsatz), >Optativ und Imprekativ (Flüche, Beleidigungen) hinzukommen.

Grob gesagt ist der deklarative Satzmodus Wahrheitswertbeurteilungen zugänglich (z.B. Du bist dumm.); der interrogative drückt eine Wissenslücke über einen Sachverhalt aus (z.B. Bist du dumm?, Wer ist dumm?); der direktive Satzmodus drückt einen Wunsch des Sprechers über die Realisierung eines Sachverhaltes aus (z.B. Sei nicht dumm!); der exklamative Satzmodus drückt eine emotionale Einstellung des Sprechers über einen als zutreffend aufgefassten Sachverhalt aus (z.B. Bist du dumm!, Dass du so dumm bist!).

Der Satzmodus wird aus der Interaktion morphologischer Faktoren (insbesondere Verbformen, z.B. Kommst du morgen! vs. Kämest du morgen (doch)! vs. Komm (du) morgen doch!), syntaktischer Faktoren (insbesondere der Stellung des finiten Verbs, z.B. Kommst du morgen vs. Du kommst morgen.) und phonologisch-phonetischer Faktoren (z.B. Akzenttypen, Akzentverteilung, Tonhöhen-Verlauf (z.B. Du kommst morgen! vs. Du kommst morgen?) mit unterschiedlichen lexikalischen Mitteln (z.B. Fragewörtern, Satzadverbien, Modalpartikeln (z.B. Du kommst morgen! vs. Du kommst morgen ja/doch/wirklich!) konstituiert.

Auch satzähnliche Formen mit spezifischer Struktur können auf ein bestimmtes modales Bedeutungsspektrum festgelegt sein, z.B. Dass du wohl kommst!, Du und gewinnen!, In den Müll mit dem Dreck!

Ziel der sprachwissenschaftlichen Diskussion um den Satzmodus ist die Entwicklung von Theorien, die sowohl die verschiedenen formalen Aspekte der Satzmoduskonstitution als auch die Semantik und Pragmatik (Sprechereinstellungen; Illokutionen) der Satzmodi und ihre Abgrenzung zu emotionalen Bedeutungsaspekten und Kategorien wie >Evidentialität (vgl. >Quotativ) oder Höflichkeit in kohärenter und Einzelsprachen übergreifender Weise darzustellen gestatten.

Als problematisch erweisen sich in formaler Hinsicht besonders sog. explizite Performative (z.B. Ich befehle dir hiermit still zu sein!, vgl. Brandt et al. (1989)) und Nebensätze (z.B. Fallegger (2005)).

Im Rahmen der >Generativen Semantik der 1970er Jahre wurde der Satzmodus mittels Merkmalen eines tiefenstrukturell angenommenen Verbs (z.B. [±performativ, ±deklarativ, ±imperativ]) oder durch performative Hypersätze (z.B. [Ich befehle dir:[komm her]]) als syntaktisch-semantisches Phänomen beschrieben (vgl. z.B. McCawley (1985)).

In neueren Arbeiten der >GG wird der Satzmodus häufig als eine >Funktionale Kategorie gedeutet, deren >Projektion zu einer Modusphrase (z.B. ForceP oder MP als Projektion einer >Funktionalen Kategorie Force bzw. M) führt, welche die höchste Projektion eines Satzes bildet und somit die jeweilige Proposition in ihrem Skopus hat (vgl. z.B. Zimmermann (2004; 2007) für eine entsprechende Darstellung der Syntax und Semantik der Diskurspartikeln).

Results (English) 1:

Name for the > mode records.According to E. Stenius (1967) each set has two semantic aspects, a radical of set of and has a > mode. Set radical is the truth-functional content of a sentence, his proposition, and can capture are in a truth value functional semantics, the > mode of record indicates the type of speech and is writable within certain language games.In most languages > declarative, interrogative (> question set) and > directive (> imperative) the nucleus of the set modes, what more rate modes such as Exklamativ (> Exklamativsatz), > opt and Imprekativ (curses, insults) will be added.The declarative sentence mode of truth value assessments is accessible (E.g. roughly You're stupid.); the interrogative expresses a gap in knowledge about an issue (E.g. you're stupid?, who's stupid?); the directive set mode expresses a desire of the speaker to the realisation of the facts of the case (E.g. don't be silly!); the exklamative set mode expresses an emotional setting of spokesman on an issue that is taken as true (E.g., you're stupid!, you're so stupid!).The set mode is from the interaction of morphological factors (particularly verb forms, E.g. you come tomorrow! vs. you here tomorrow (yet)! vs. come on (you) tomorrow!), syntactic factors (in particular the position of the finite verb, E.g. you come tomorrow vs.) You are coming tomorrow.) and phonetic and phonological factors (E.g. types of accent, accent distribution, pitch history (E.g. You're coming tomorrow! vs. You come tomorrow?) with different lexical resources (E.g. question words, sentence adverbs, modal particles (E.g. You're coming tomorrow! vs. You're coming tomorrow Yes / / really!) constituted.Also set similar shapes with specific structure can be set to a specific modal importance spectrum, E.g. You're probably coming!, you and win!, in the garbage with dirt!The linguistic discussion of the set mode aims to the development of theories, the different formal aspects of the Constitution of the set mode as well as the semantics and pragmatics (speaker settings; Illokutionen) the set modes and their delimitation to emotional importance aspects and categories like > Evidentialität (cf. > Quotativ) or courtesy in coherent and Interlingua overarching approach to present make it possible.Especially so-called explicit performative (I.e. prove to be problematic in terms of formal I hereby order you to be quiet!, see Brandt et al. (1989)) and subordinate clauses (E.g. Fadol (2005)).Within the framework of the > generative semantics of the 1970s was the record mode features of a deep structural adopted verb (E.g., [±performativ, ±deklarativ, ±imperativ]) or performative hyper rates (E.g. [I command you: [come]]) syntacto semantic phenomenon described (cf. E.g. McCawley (1985)).In more recent works the > GG is often as one of the set mode > functional category implied, whose > projection to a mode of phrase (E.g. ForceP or MP as a projection a > functional category force or M) leads, which forms the highest projection of a set and thus has the relevant proposition in her Mount Scopus (see E.g. Zimmermann (2004, 2007) for an equivalent representation of the syntax and semantics of discourse particles).

Results (English) 2:

Designation for> modality of sentences. After E. Stenius (1967), each set two semantic aspects, a set and a radical> mode. The sentence radical is the truth-content of a sentence, his proposition, and can be detected, the> mode of a sentence indicates the type of speech act and is under certain language games writable. In a truth-value functional semantics In most languages ​​form> Declarative, interrogative ( > interrogative sentence) and> directive (> imperative) the core of the Satzmodi, added to which more Satzmodi as Exklamativ (> Exklamativsatz)> opt and Imprekativ (curses, insults). is roughly speaking the declarative sentence mode truth value assessments accessible (eg, You're stupid .); the interrogative expresses a lack of knowledge about an issue (eg you so stupid ?, Who is stupid?); the directive set mode expresses a wish of the speaker on the realization of a fact (for example, Do not be silly!); the exklamative set mode expresses an emotional attitude of the speaker over a conceived as a true state of affairs (eg Are you stupid !, That you're so stupid!). The set mode is from the interaction of morphological factors (especially verb forms, eg Are you coming tomorrow! vs. If you came, tomorrow (yet)! vs. Come (you) tomorrow but!), syntactic factors (in particular, the position of the finite verb, eg Are you coming tomorrow vs. You come tomorrow.) and phonological-phonetic factors (eg accent types, accent distribution, pitch curve (for example you come tomorrow! vs. you come tomorrow?) with various lexical resources (eg question words, sentential adverbs, modal particles (eg you come tomorrow! vs. You come tomorrow yes / but / truly! constituted). Also set similar forms with a specific structure can be set to a specific modal spectrum of meanings, for example, that you probably come !, you and win !, In the garbage with dirt! The aim of the linguistic discussion about the set mode is the development of theories that both the various formal aspects the set mode Constitution as well as the semantics and pragmatics (speaker settings; Illocutions) allow display of Satzmodi and their distinction from emotional aspects of meaning and categories like> Evidentiality (see.> Quotative) or courtesy in a coherent and individual languages-border manner. As a problematic turn out in formal terms particularly called. Explicit Performative (eg I order hereby to be quiet !, see. Brandt et al. (1989)) and subordinate clauses (eg Fallegger (2005)). In the context of> Generative Semantics 1970s the set mode by features of a verb deeply structurally adopted (eg [± was performative, ± declaratively, ± imperative]) or by performative hyper sets (eg, [I order you: [come here].]) described as a syntactic-semantic phenomenon (see eg McCawley (1985).) In more recent works the> GG the set mode is often referred to as interpreted a> Functional category whose> projection mode to a phrase (eg ForceP or MP as a projection> Functional Category Force or M) leads, which constitutes the highest projection of a sentence and thus the respective proposition in their Scopus (cf.. eg Zimmermann (2004; 2007) for an appropriate representation of the syntax and semantics of discourse particles).

Results (English) 3:

term for > modality of sentences.

after e. stenius (1967), every set of two semantic aspects, a satzradikal and > mode. the satzradikal is the wahrheitsfunktionale content of a sentence, his proposition, and can be in a wahrheitswertfunktionalen semantics capturethe > mode of a sentence indicates the type of the sprechaktes and is in certain games described.

in most languages are > declarative, interrogative (> fragesatz) and > directive (imperative) the core of the satzmodi, which further satzmodi as exklamativ (> exklamativsatz) > optativ and imprekativ (curses, insults).

roughly speaking, the declarative satzmodus wahrheitswertbeurteilungen accessible (for example, you're stupid.); the interrogative expresses a lack of knowledge on an issue (e.g. are you stupid? who is stupid?) the directive satzmodus expresses a desire, the spokesman on the realization of facts (e.g., don't be stupid!) ;the exklamative satzmodus expresses an emotional attitude of the speaker on a true imagined facts (e.g. are you stupid! that you're stupid!) .

the satzmodus is the interaction of morphological factors (in particular verb, e.g. are you coming tomorrow! vs. you come tomorrow (yet). vs. come (you) morning!) ,syntactic factors (in particular the position of the finite verb, e.g. are you coming tomorrow. you are coming tomorrow.) - phonetic and phonological factors (e.g. akzenttypen, akzentverteilung, pitches - course (e.g. you come tomorrow! vs. you come tomorrow?) with different lexical resources (e.g. fragewörtern, satzadverbien, modal particles (e.g. you come tomorrow! vs.you are coming tomorrow yes / yes / really!) reconstituted.

also satzähnliche forms with specific structure can be set to a particular modal bedeutungsspektrum, for example, that you have come! you win. in the garbage with the garbage.

goal of linguistic discussion of the satzmodus is the development of theories.both the various formal aspects of the satzmoduskonstitution and semantics and pragmatic (sprechereinstellungen; illokutionen) satzmodi and its boundary to emotional bedeutungsaspekten and categories such as > evidentialität (cf. > quotativ) or courtesy in a coherent and comprehensive manner to allow einzelsprachen.

be in formal terms especially. explicit performative (e.g., i order you to be quiet now! see brandt et al. (1989) and subphrases (e.g. fallegger (2005)).

in the context of the > generative semantics of the 1970s was the satzmodus using characteristics of a tiefenstrukturell verbs (e.g., [±performativ adopted, ±deklarativ,±imperativ]) or by performative hypersätze (e.g. [i command you: [come]]) as syntactically - semantic phenomenon (cf. for example, mccawley (1985)).

in the recent work of the satzmodus > gg is often regarded as a functional category > interpreted the > projection to a modusphrase (e.g. forcep or mp as a projection of a functional category of force or > m),the maximum projection of a sentence, and thus each proposition in her 2 (cf. for example, carpenter (2004; 2007) for a presentation of the syntax and semantics of the diskurspartikeln).