Cover not available
Part of
Exploring Intensification: Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives
Edited by Maria Napoli and Miriam Ravetto
[Studies in Language Companion Series 189] 2017
► pp. 265–288

Chapter 13
The coordination of identical conjuncts as a means of strengthening expressions in German and Italian

| Università di Pisa

The article deals with syntactic units which are formed in German and in Italian by means of coordination of identical conjuncts with und or e. The resulting structure can be characterized as x ˄ x. x ˄ x units show weak productivity with a strong tendency to idiomaticity. They are often seen as stylistic means and idiomatic expressions to which the general rules of coordination do not strictly apply. Coordination of identical conjuncts is usually viewed as a case of “false coordination”, wherein the und/e conjugation does not have linking function. x ˄ x expressions are often used for specific stylistic effects, including intensification. Based on the observation of about 100 authentic examples in both languages, the article offers a description of different types of x ˄ x structures, in order to focus on those serving as intensifiers. The main issues addressed regard the roles of reduplication and conjunction in the intensification and the status of x ˄ x structures (independent groups or idioms). First contrastive observations are offered about frequency, form and function of x ˄ x structures in German and in Italian.

Keywords: intensification, coordination, grammar vs. style, German-Italian contrastive linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Some examples
  • 3. x ˄ x-expressions: forms and functions
  • 4.x ˄ x-units as a means of intensification
    • 4.1Intensification through reduplication
    • 4.2The role of the conjunction in intensification
    • 4.3Free groups or idioms?
  • 5.Contrastive observations
    • 5.1Type of conjunct
    • 5.2Types of intensification relations
  • 6.Conclusions and perspectives
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.189.14fos
References
Berrer, Julie
1934 Verbale Bildungsmittel zur Intensivierung im Alemannischen. Tübingen: Göbel.Google Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik
2010 Semantische Unterbestimmtheit bei Konnektoren. In Semantische Unbestimmtheit im Lexikon, Inge Pohl (ed.), 205–221. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bonacchi, Silvia
2012 “Un abbraccio forte forte, un amore grande grande”: Zur semantischen Valenz der Reduplikation im Italienischen und zu den Möglichkeiten ihrer Wiedergabe. Studia Germanica Gedanensia 27: 47–60.Google Scholar
Camugli Gallardo, Catherine
2009  Promettere mari e monti / Promettre monts et merveilles. Funzione intensiva della coordinazione nelle espressioni polirematiche. In Sintassi storica e sincronica dell’italiano. subordinazione, coordinazione, giustapposizione: Atti del X Congresso della Società internazionale di linguistica e filologia italiana, Basilea, 30 giugno-3 luglio 2008, Angela Ferrari (ed.), 1599–1614. Firenze: Franco Cesati.Google Scholar
Colombo, Adriano
2011 La coordinazione. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Dobrovol’skij, Dimitrij
1995 Kognitive Aspekte der Idiom-Semantik. Studien zum Thesaurus deutscher Idiome. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Dolfi, Valentina
2013 Räumliche Mittel der deutschen und der italienischen Sprache: eine korpusbasierte kontrastive Untersuchung. PhD dissertation, Università di Pisa. [URL]
Duden online
. Bibliographisches Institut 2013 <[URL]
Duden. Die Grammatik
(20098). Edited by the Duden editorial board. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
DWDS Das Digitale Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache
2003 and onwards. Berlin-Brandeburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (eds). [URL]
Engel, Ulrich
1988 Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiana
2015 Syntax und grammar of idioms and collocations. In Syntax – Theory and Analyses. An International Handbook, Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds), 777–802. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Wolfgang & Barz, Irmhild
2007 Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Grammis 2.0. Grammatisches Informationssystem des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache (IDS)
[URL]
Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik
1981 Edited by a team of authors under direction of Karl Erich Heidolph, Walter Fläming, Wolfgang Motsch. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina
2015 Coordination. In Syntax – Theory and Analyses. An International Handbook, Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds), 478–514. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jarosz, Józef
2009 Zu den strukturellen Eigenschaften der deutschen Zwillingsformeln. Acta Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Ostraviensis / Studia Germanistica 4: 17–25.Google Scholar
Lang, Ewald
1977 Semantik der koordinativen Verknüpfung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Reich, Ingo, Reis, Marga, Ehrich, Veronika & Fortmann, Christian
2009 Einführung. In Koordination und Subordination im Deutschen, Veronika Ehrich, Christian Fortmann, Marga Erich & Ingo Reis (eds), 5–17. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Renzi, Lorenzo
1988 Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Schwarze, Christoph
19952. Grammatik der italienischen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treccani.it L’enciclopedia Italiana
[URL]
van Os, Charles
1989 Aspekte der Intensivierung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno
1997 Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, Vol. 3. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar