Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2005 (13) (remove)
Document Type
- Preprint (13) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (13)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (13)
Keywords
- Schweizerdeutsch (4)
- Chatten <Kommunikation> (2)
- Dialektologie (2)
- Chatraum (1)
- Deutsch (1)
- Grammaires d’Arbres Adjoints (1)
- Grammatik (1)
- Lernmotivation (1)
- MCTAG (1)
- Multicomponent Tree Adjoining Grammar (1)
Institute
- Extern (5)
Sprachwahl und Sprachwahrnehmung sind im Deutschen unabdingbar geprägt durch das Wissen von einer Standardsprache. Dieses Wissen basiert für die meisten Sprecher auf der Erfahrung, dass in der Schule manche sprachliche Formen als korrekt, andere als falsch bewertet werden, außerdem auf der Tatsache, dass es Fixierungen der Regeln des Standards in Lexika und Grammatiken gibt. Wissen und Anerkennung dieses Standards sind unabhängig davon, dass keine dieser Kodifikationen unumstritten ist, dass viele Sprecher die Regeln nicht genau kennen und dass als Vorbilder anerkannte Personen (Nachrichtensprecher, Journalisten bestimmter Zeitschriften, Lehrer, Literaten u.a.) keineswegs einheitliche Regeln verfolgen. Der Standard ist fest assoziiert mit der Erfahrung einer legitimen Regelhaftigkeit, also mit Ordnung. Verwendung von Nonstandard wird mit Bezug auf diese Ordnung und von ihr unterschieden wahrgenommen. Diese relationale Sicht der Dinge ist sowohl subjektiv als auch intersubjektiv.
In the last decade, the Penn treebank has become the standard data set for evaluating parsers. The fact that most parsers are solely evaluated on this specific data set leaves the question unanswered how much these results depend on the annotation scheme of the treebank. In this paper, we will investigate the influence which different decisions in the annotation schemes of treebanks have on parsing. The investigation uses the comparison of similar treebanks of German, NEGRA and TüBa-D/Z, which are subsequently modified to allow a comparison of the differences. The results show that deleted unary nodes and a flat phrase structure have a negative influence on parsing quality while a flat clause structure has a positive influence.
This paper develops a framework for TAG (Tree Adjoining Grammar) semantics that brings together ideas from different recent approaches.Then, within this framework, an analysis of scope is proposed that accounts for the different scopal properties of quantifiers, adverbs, raising verbs and attitude verbs. Finally, including situation variables in the semantics, different situation binding possibilities are derived for different types of quantificational elements.
This paper profiles significant differences in syntactic distribution and differences in word class frequencies for two treebanks of spoken and written German: the TüBa-D/S, a treebank of transliterated spontaneous dialogs, and the TüBa-D/Z treebank of newspaper articles published in the German daily newspaper ´die tageszeitung´(taz). The approach can be used more generally as a means of distinguishing and classifying language corpora of different genres.
Multicomponent Tree Adjoining Grammars (MCTAG) is a formalism that has been shown to be useful for many natural language applications. The definition of MCTAG however is problematic since it refers to the process of the derivation itself: a simultaneity constraint must be respected concerning the way the members of the elementary tree sets are added. Looking only at the result of a derivation (i.e., the derived tree and the derivation tree), this simultaneity is no longer visible and therefore cannot be checked. I.e., this way of characterizing MCTAG does not allow to abstract away from the concrete order of derivation. Therefore, in this paper, we propose an alternative definition of MCTAG that characterizes the trees in the tree language of an MCTAG via the properties of the derivation trees the MCTAG licences.
When a statistical parser is trained on one treebank, one usually tests it on another portion of the same treebank, partly due to the fact that a comparable annotation format is needed for testing. But the user of a parser may not be interested in parsing sentences from the same newspaper all over, or even wants syntactic annotations for a slightly different text type. Gildea (2001) for instance found that a parser trained on the WSJ portion of the Penn Treebank performs less well on the Brown corpus (the subset that is available in the PTB bracketing format) than a parser that has been trained only on the Brown corpus, although the latter one has only half as many sentences as the former. Additionally, a parser trained on both the WSJ and Brown corpora performs less well on the Brown corpus than on the WSJ one. This leads us to the following questions that we would like to address in this paper: - Is there a difference in usefulness of techniques that are used to improve parser performance between the same-corpus and the different-corpus case? - Are different types of parsers (rule-based and statistical) equally sensitive to corpus variation? To achieve this, we compared the quality of the parses of a hand-crafted constraint-based parser and a statistical PCFG-based parser that was trained on a treebank of German newspaper text.
Das Zustandspassiv : grammatische Einordnung – Bildungsbeschränkungen – Interpretationsspielraum
(2005)
“Comments are very welcome!” This basic attitude and the many ways of implementing it contribute immensely to the fascination of engaging in scientific research. I am grateful to Theoretical Linguistics for providing a public platform for this kind of scholarly exchange and I thank all commentators for their thoughtful, stimulating, and often challenging contributions to my target article. My response will address two main issues that are raised by the commentaries. The first issue is shaped by a cluster of questions relating to ontology. The second issue concerns questions of methodology pertaining in particular to the problem of judging data.
Since Donald Davidson’s seminal work “The Logical Form of Action Sentences” (1967) event arguments have become an integral component of virtually every semantic theory. Over the past years Davidson´s proposal has been continuously extended such that nowadays event(uality) arguments are generally associated not only with action verbs but with predicates of all sorts. The reasons for such an extension are seldom explicitly justified. Most problematical in this respect is the case of stative expressions. By taking a closer look at copula sentences the present study assesses the legitimacy of stretching the Davidsonian notion of events and discusses its consequences. A careful application of some standard eventuality diagnostics (perception reports, combination with locative modifiers and manner adverbials) as well as some new diagnostics (behavior of certain degree adverbials) reveals that copular expressions do not behave as expected under a Davidsonian perspective: they fail all eventuality tests, regardless of whether they represent stage-level or individual-level predicates. In this respect, copular expressions pattern with stative verbs like know, hate, and resemble, which in turn differ sharply from state verbs like stand, sit, and sleep. The latter pass all of the eventuality tests and therefore qualify as true “Davidsonian state” expressions. On the basis of these empirical observations and taking up ideas of Kim (1969, 1976) and Asher (1993, 2000), an alternative account of copular expressions (and stative verbs) is provided, according to which the copula introduces a referential argument for a temporally bound property exemplification (= “Kimian state”). Considerations on some logical properties, viz. closure conditions and the latent infinite regress of eventualities, suggest that supplementing Davidsonian eventualities with Kimian states may yield not only a more adequate analysis of copula sentences but also a better understanding of eventualities in general.
Wer sich einmal in Deutschschweizer IRC-Chatkanälen herumgesehen hat, hat sofort bemerkt, dass neben der Standardsprache häufig Mundart verwendet wird. Eine Analyse der Varietätenverwendung bietet sich an. Es stellt sich die Frage: was bedeutet sprachliche Norm in einem Kommunikationsraum, in dem die Vorgabe, Deutsch zu schreiben, nur heißt nicht Französisch, Italienisch, Türkisch, Serbisch, Portugiesisch usw. zu schreiben, wo also die Standardsprache nur eine der akzeptierten Varietäten ist? Was bedeutet sprachliche Norm, wo Berndeutsch mit /l/-Vokalisierung neben Walliserdeutsch mit archaischen Volltonvokalen in Nebensilben vorkommt, wo für ein standardsprachliches [a:] ‹a, ah, aa, o, oh› oder ‹oo› stehen kann? Der Frage nach einer deskriptiven Norm wird hier nachgegangen, indem Möglichkeiten der Verschriftung einzelner Aspekte aufgezeigt werden und deren Nutzung in regionalen und überregionalen Chaträumen verglichen werden. Aus dem aktuellen Gebrauch wird dann versucht implizite Normen abzuleiten.