Nominal Concept Types in German Fictional Texts

  • Christian HornEmail author
  • Nicolas Kimm
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 94)


This paper presents the preliminary annotation guidelines and the results of the first empirical investigation of Löbner’s (Journal of Semantics 28(3): 279–333, 2011) semantic distinction of four basic conceptual noun types (sortal, relational, functional, and individual concepts). On the basis of two German fictional texts, we test the hypothesis that the concept types are more frequently used with semantically congruent determination than with incongruent determination with respect to definiteness marking, number and possession. The proposed annotation guidelines follow a two-level approach and comprise (i) the semantic analysis of the nouns in the texts followed by (ii) the annotation of their particular grammatical uses. The results provide first empirical evidence for the distinction of the four concept types.


Concept types Semantics Semantic annotation Statistics 



The research reported in this paper was financed by the German Research Foundation, research unit FOR 600, “Functional Concepts and Frames”, project A5 “Automatic classification of concept types” ( We would like to express our gratitude to Sebastian Löbner, James Kilbury, Peter Indefrey, Anja Latrouite, our fellow annotators Doris Gerland, Elisabeth Morgner, and Jessica Nieder, and to two anonymous reviewers.


  1. Abbott, Barbara. 2004. Definiteness and indefiniteness. In Handbook of pragmatics, eds. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 122–149. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, Barbara. 2010. Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Allan, Keith. 1980. Nouns and countability. Language 56(3): 541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anonymous. 2010. Einer den Anderen. Accessed 10 July 2010.
  5. Asudeh, Ash. 2005. Relational nouns, pronouns, and resumption. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(4): 375–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive descriptions. Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Behaghel, Otto. 1923. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Bd. I: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. A. Nomen. Pronomen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitaetsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
  8. Bisle-Müller, Hansjörg. 1991. Artikelwörter im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles N. Li, 25–55. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174: 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, Herbert H., and Catherine R. Marshall. 1981. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Elements of discourse understanding, eds. Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie Webber, and Ivan Sag, 10–63. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. De Bruin, Jos, and Remko Scha. 1988. The interpretation of relational nouns. In Proceedings of the ACL, 25–32. Buffalo.Google Scholar
  13. Duden. 1997. Duden Universalwörterbuch A-Z. 3rd edition. Electronic version. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut and BrockhausGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik 2: Der Satz. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler.Google Scholar
  15. Erkü, Feride, and Jeanette Kohn Gundel. 1987. The pragmatics of indirect anaphors. In The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International pragmatics conference, eds. Jef Verschueren and Marcella Bertuccelli-Papi, 533–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  16. Field, Andy. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Fleiss, Joseph L. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin 76(5): 378–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerland, Doris, and Christian Horn. 2010. Referential properties of nouns across languages. In Universal grammar and individual languages. Proceedings of SICoL 2010, eds. D.-H. Choi, J.-S. Hong, H.-K. Kang, Y.-S. Kang, K.-H. Kim, K.-A. Kim, J.-Y. Yoon, S.-H. Rhee, and J.-S. Wu. Seoul: Korea.Google Scholar
  19. Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, Speech acts, vol. 3, ed. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  20. Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  21. Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Dissertation. Schriftenreihe des Sonderforschungsbereichs 99, Linguistik, Nr. 73. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
  22. Helbig, Gerhard, and Joachim Buscha. 2005. Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Berlin: Langenscheid KG.Google Scholar
  23. Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2001. Articles. In Language typology and language universals, eds. Haspelmath Martin, König Ekkehard, Oesterreicher Wulf, and Raible Wolfgang, 831–841. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Horn, Christian. In prep. Properties of nouns and modes of determination in German. Dissertation, University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
  25. Horn, Christian. 2012. Annotation guidelines for the corpus linguistic analysis of concept types in German texts. Poster presented at the 5th Conference of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kognitive Linguistik (DGKL). 10–12 Oct 2012, University of Freiburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  26. Kimm, Nicolas, and Christian Horn. 2011. Nominal associative anaphors – a text-based analysis at the semantics-pragmatics interface. In Anaphora processing and applications, eds. Iris Hendrickx, Sobha Lalitha Devi, Antonio Branco, and Ruslan Mitkov, 108–118. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, conjunction and events, Studies in linguistics and philosophy, vol. 55. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Löbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Löbner, Sebastian. 1998. Definite associative anaphora. In Approaches to discourse anaphora. Proceedings of DAARC96 - discourse anaphora and resolution colloquium, ed. Simon Botley. Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  30. Löbner, Sebastian. 2005. Quantoren im GWDS. In Untersuchungen zur kommerziellen Lexikographie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache II. “Duden. Das große Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache in zehn Bänden,” ed. H. E. Wiegand, 171–192. Tübingen: Niemeye.Google Scholar
  31. Löbner, Sebastian. 2011. Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28(3): 279–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nissim, Malvina. 2004. Lexical information and choice of determiners. In Possessives and beyond: Semantics and syntax, eds. Ji-Yung Kim, Yury A. Lander, and Barbara Partee, 133–152. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Partee, Barbara. 1983/1997. Genitives – a case study. Appendix to Theo Janssen (1997): Compositionality. In The Handbook of logic and language, eds. Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 464–470. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  34. Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 2012. Lexical nouns are both +MASS and +COUNT, but they are neither +MASS nor +COUNT. In Count and mass across languages, Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics, vol. 42, ed. Diane Massam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Plank, Frans. 1992. Possessives and the distinction between determiners and modifiers (with special reference to German). Journal of Linguistics 28: 453–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical pragmatics, ed. Cole Peter, 223–56. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  37. Schwarz, Florian. 2009. Two types of definites in natural language. Ph.D. Thesis. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  38. Vikner, Carl, and Per A. Jensen. 2002. A semantic analysis of the english genitive. Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica 56: 191–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 1981. On Grice’s theory of conversation. In Conversation and discourse, ed. Paul Werth, 155–178. London: Croom Helm. Reprinted 1998 in Pragmatics: Critical concepts, Vol. IV, ed. Asa Kasher, 347–368. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Information ScienceHeinrich Heine University DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations