Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2006 (161) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (78)
- Article (26)
- Conference Proceeding (19)
- Preprint (16)
- Book (7)
- Report (7)
- Working Paper (7)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (124)
- German (31)
- French (3)
- Portuguese (2)
- mis (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (161) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (161)
Keywords
- Thema-Rhema-Gliederung (22)
- Formale Semantik (20)
- Englisch (17)
- Deutsch (15)
- Syntax (14)
- Informationsstruktur (13)
- Lexikologie (12)
- Bantusprachen (7)
- Pragmatik (6)
- Semantik (5)
Institute
- Extern (23)
Eine unübersehbare Menge neuer Anglizismen findet über Fach- und Gruppensprachen Eingang in die deutsche Alltagssprache, in der ein Teil von ihnen inzwischen seinen festen Platz hat. […] Insbesondere in den Bereichen der Lautung und der Schreibung bleibt bei den neueren Entlehnungen oberflächlich eine große Nähe zu gebersprachlichen Strukturen erhalten. Diese Entwicklung wird von einigen Fachleuten und Politikern […] als Indiz für eine schleichende ‚Kolonialisierung’ der deutschen Sprache durch das Englische herangezogen. [...] Dieser Einschätzung widersprechen zahlreiche Organe […] und Autoren […] ausdrücklich. […] Im Kontext dieser Auseinandersetzung ist die vorliegende Arbeit verortet. Ihr Ziel ist es zu zeigen, daß die Sprecher des Deutschen Anglizismen sehr wohl phonologisch, graphematisch und morphologisch in die deutsche Sprache integrieren. Untersuchungsgegenstand sind mehrgliedrige Verben, die aus dem Englischen entlehnt wurden und überwiegend in Fach- und Gruppensprachen und/oder in informellem, vorwiegend mündlichem Text auftreten. Für das Problemfeld der verbalen Wortbildung wird dargelegt, daß morphologische Integration nicht unsystematisch erfolgt, sondern sich an den Flexionsmustern deutscher komplexer Verben orientiert. Der Integrationsgrad der einzelnen Lexeme ist dynamisch und sprecherabhängig.
Der vorliegende Beitrag prüft, ob der „Sprachinsel“-Ansatz wirklich geeignet ist, das Problem „Realitätsbereich Deutsch als Minderheitensprache“ sachangemessen zu erkennen, zu erfassen, zu thematisieren, zu beschreiben, zu interpretieren und zu bewerten, indem er verdeutlicht, dass die Metapher der ‘Sprachinsel’ heute mindestens in zweifacher Hinsicht keinen optimalen Ordnungs- und Erklärungsansatz bereitstellen kann. Erstens, weil das derzeitige Kommunikationsprofil von Minderheitengemeinschaften und das aktuelle Gesicht dieser Sprachvarietäten nicht mehr durch eine insulare Abgeschiedenheit, sondern vielmehr durch Zwei- und Mehrsprachigkeit und Sprachen- bzw. Kulturenkontakte bestimmt werden. Zweitens, weil die sog. metaphorischen Konzepte bei der wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnis eine wesentliche Rolle spielen. Daher wäre ein Untersuchungsansatz produktiv, welcher der besonderen aktuellen Dynamik der für die Minderheiten meist charakteristischen mehrsprachigen bzw. mehrkulturigen Konfigurationen und den sprachlichen bzw. kulturellen Austauschprozessen explizit Rechnung trägt. In diesem Zusammenhang wird hier eine interkulturelle (oder transkulturelle) Linguistik als mögliches Paradigma vorgeschlagen.
Modifiability by almost has been used as a test for the quantificational force of a DP without stating the meaning of almost explicitly. The aim of this paper is to give a semantics for almost applying across categories and to evaluate the validity of the almost test as a diagnosis for universal quantifiers. It is argued that almost is similar to other cross-categorial modifiers such as at least or exactly in referring to alternatives ordered on a scale. I propose that almost evaluates alternatives in which the modified expression is replaced by a value close by on the corresponding Horn scale. It is shown that a semantics for almost that refers to scalar alternatives derives the correct truth conditions for almost and explains selectional restrictions. At the same time, taking the semantics of almost seriously invalidates the almost test as a simple diagnosis for the nature of quantifiers.
In this paper, we investigate the usefulness of a wide range of features for their usefulness in the resolution of nominal coreference, both as hard constraints (i.e. completely removing elements from the list of possible candidates) as well as soft constraints (where a cumulation of violations of soft constraints will make it less likely that a candidate is chosen as the antecedent). We present a state of the art system based on such constraints and weights estimated with a maximum entropy model, using lexical information to resolve cases of coreferent bridging.
The paper presents a novel approach to explaining word order variation in the early Germanic languages. Initial observations about verb placement as a device marking types of rhetorical relations made on data from Old High German (cf. Hinterhölzl & Petrova 2005) are now reconsidered on a larger scale and compared with evidence from other early Germanic languages. The paper claims that the identification of information-structural domains in a sentence is best achieved by taking into account the interaction between the pragmatic features of discourse referents and properties of discourse organization.
Setswana distinguishes between conjunctive and disjunctive verb forms in the present positive tense. Creissels (1996) shows that this is also true of a number of other tenses (present negative, future positive and perfect positive). This work is used as a starting point to investigate the conjunctive/disjunctive distinction in my own Setswana data. Further to those presented in Creissels, there is data on the past and past progressive tenses, and environments such as relatives and subordinates. Creissels' analysis is supported by different examples, including those that do not utilise a frame intended to limit boundary effects. There are also examples not within this frame that raise questions about how flexible the conjunctive/disjunctive system can be. This paper is a work in progress.
In this article, an account is given of the planning of a trilingual dictionary Yilumbu– French–English. The focus is on the target user, the purpose, nature and typology of the planned dictionary. Attention is also paid to some macro- and microstructural issues. For example, all types of lexical items, including multiword lexical items, are given lemma status. Moreover all items are included according to the word tradition and on account of their usage frequency in the corpus. Apart from these aspects, types of dialectal forms as well as the type of special-field lexical items are also discussed. From a microstructural point of view, this article investigates different kinds of data types to be considered for inclusion in complex articles in particular. User-friendliness parameters and innovative access structure procedures also come into play.
Starting from the basic observation that, across languages, the anticausative variant of an alternating verb systematically involves morphological marking that is shared by passive verbs, the goal of this paper is to provide a uniform and formal account of these arguably two different construction types. The central claim that I put forward is that passives and anticausatives differ only with respect to the event-type features of the verb but both arise through the same operation, namely suppression by special morphology of a feature in v that encodes the ontological event type of the verb. Crucially, I argue for two syntactic primitives, namely act and cause, whereto I trace the passive/anticausative distinction. Passive constructions across languages are made compatible by relegating the differences to simple combinatorial properties of verb and prepositional types and their interactions with other event functors, which are in turn encoded differently morphologically across languages. New arguments are brought forward for a causative analysis of anticausatives. Agentive adverbials are examined, and doubt is cast on the usefulness of by-phrases as a diagnostic for argumenthood.
This paper discusses a semantic analysis of three syntactic types of English each, namely, floated each, binominal each, and prenominal each. It is argued that floated each consists of two parts, a quantifier and an inaudible element which functions as its restrictor, which together form a tripartite quantificational structure when they compose with the predicate. Binominal each and an associated NP such as two topics (which is generally called the 'distributive share') are syntactically analyzed as forming a subject-predicate relation within a DP in which the NP undergoes so-called 'predicate inversion'. Semantically, binominal each is analyzed as having the same semantic value as floated each, while prenominal each is shown to have a different logical type from floated and binominal each. As can be seen from analogous constructions in some Romance languages, it does not lexically contain its restrictor.
The paper investigates the interaction of focus and adverbial quantification in Hausa, a Chadic tone language spoken in West Africa. The discussion focuses on similarities and differences between intonation and tone languages concerning the way in which adverbial quantifiers (AQs) and focus particles (FPs) associate with focus constituents. It is shown that the association of AQs with focused elements does not differ fundamentally in intonation and tone languages such as Hausa, despite the fact that focus marking in Hausa works quite differently. This may hint at the existence of a universal mechanism behind the interpretation of adverbial quantifiers across languages. From a theoretical perspective, the Hausa data can be taken as evidence in favour of pragmatic approaches to the focus-sensitivity of AQs, such as e.g. Beaver & Clark (2003).