Linguistische Berichte Heft 188

This article will do two things. Firstly, it describes an empirical investigation into the norm awareness/knowledge of a group of trainee teachers in southem Germany. This investigation was carried out on the basis of questionnaires aimed at establishing how much agreement exists regarding ·correct' German. The findings, which indicate that there is considerable variability in the informants' judgements regarding 'correct' German are then presented and interpreted and the implications of this variability for pupils are discussed. In the second part of the article the author moves on to discuss critically the arguments for and against greater norm tolerance at schools, with reference to issues such as the role of a standard variety, the social and subjective dimensions of intelligibility, barriers to literacy and the implications of a more critical approach to the 'appropriateness' model of linguistic variation. The potential contribution of nom, tolerance to an emancipatory education is discussed and the article ends with a plea for more retlection on language and on its role in the formation of individual identity and in social life.

In ( 1), the focus particle auch contributes an additional meaning component to the underlying sentence Hans ißt Salat. There is an ambiguity, however, in what is added: it can mean that Hans is not the only person who eats salad, or it can mean that salad is not the only thing that Hans eats. As has often been noted, this ambiguity in what auch applies to - its 'domain of application' - is normally resolved by prosody (see e.g. König, 1991; Reis & Rosengren 1997). ( 1) Hans ißt auch Salat. Hans eats also salad. A pitch accent on Salat indicated that the domain of application goes to the right, a pitch accent on the particle itself indicates that the domain of application is to the left. lt has also been stated that restrictive focus particles such as nur ·only' do not show this behaviour. What is more surprising, though, that noch, which is clearly additive, does not show it, either. (2) Hans liest noch ein Buch Hans reads still a/another book. Though there is agreement on the fact that prosody plays an important role in the functioning of focus particles (cf. Altmann 1976, Jacobs 1983, König 1991), its precise nature is very opaque. In fact, there is hardly any empirical investigation to this effect. Tue present paper reports findings on how prosody is used to identify the domain of application of auch and noch. These findings are based on a pitch analysis of natural spoken discourse, and they reveal a number of salient differences between both additive particles.

In his „Speech Acts„ (1969) Searle criticizes Grice's account of „meaning" for mistakenly involving what Austin called „perlocutionary effects". Searle argued that the only effect aimed at in Gricean communication be understanding. Some of the followers of Grice, for example Schiffer (1972) and Meggle (1997), didn't assume Searle's claim. Others, for example Bach & Hamish (1979) and Davis (1999), did, but all of them without going into deeper discussion of the issue. The present article tries to support Searle's decision by examining the force of his arguments and providing some further evidence.

Particles in Gennan have the capacity to introduce new arguments when they combine with a verb. Based on this observation, I argue that the intemal arguments of a particle verb are always introduced by the particle. I suggest that this follows from the fact that syntactically, the particle is the head of a maximal projection that occupies the single complement position of the verb; therefore, none of the base verb 's arguments can be linked to a syntactic object position if a particle is present. In providing empirical evidence for my claim, I discuss in some detail the derivation of a variety of particle verbs, representing their semantics as Lexical Conceptual Structures, according to the framework developed in Jackendoff ( 1983, 1990).