Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (1213) (remove)
Language
Has Fulltext
- yes (1213)
Keywords
- Deutsch (222)
- Kroatisch (63)
- Englisch (57)
- Linguistik (49)
- Deutsch als Fremdsprache (48)
- Fremdsprachenunterricht (44)
- Fremdsprachenlernen (42)
- Phraseologie (42)
- Metapher (37)
- Übersetzung (37)
Institute
- Extern (186)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) Mannheim (90)
- Sprachwissenschaften (26)
- Neuere Philologien (15)
- Medizin (2)
- SFB 268 (2)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (2)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (1)
- Informatik (1)
- Universitätsbibliothek (1)
In his magnum opus (Syntax and Semantics, Leiden 1978, henceforth: S&S) C.L. Ebeling makes a distinction between temporal gradation (pp 301-308 and 337-339) and temporal limitation (pp 311-315). In the case of temporal gradation “p , q”, the meaning “q” specifies the time during which the referent carries the mean-ing “p”.
A correct interpretation of the genitive plural forms in Slavic and related languages requires a detailed chronological analysis of the material. At every stage of development we have to reckon with both phonetically regular and analogical forms. Analogy operates quite often along the same lines in different periods. Explaining an analogic change amounts to indicating a model, a motivation, and a stage of development for its effectuation. If one of these cannot be indicated, we must look for a phonetic explanation.
Im Zeitalter der Globalisierung ist die Migration zu einem Ereignis geworden, das immer mehr Menschen betrifft. So machen sich einige auf der Suche nach besseren Lebensbedingungen und aus Gründen der Selbstverwirklichung freiwillig auf den Weg in ein neues Land, während andere durch Krieg oder Armut zum Verlassen ihrer Heimat gezwungen werden. Im Zielland treffen die Migranten notwendigerweise auf andere Menschen, mit denen sie sich austauschen, mit denen sie kommunizieren müssen – möglichst im Medium der Sprache. In den meisten Fällen ist die Sprache des Ziellandes jedoch eine andere als die des Herkunftslandes, so dass eine längerfristige Migration häufig, allerdings in ganz unterschiedlichem Ausmaße, zur Mehrsprachigkeit der Migranten führt.
The present paper is devoted to the old and always vexing problem of the linguistical ethnogenesis of the Slavs. The theme of the fate of the Indo-Europeans ancestors of the Slavic people is by its very nature broad and complex, too broad actually for a short essay. That is the reason why we have resigned ourselves to a detailed regular treatment, while presenting only some of the more interesting results and observations based mostly on new etymological studies of words and proper names. The major purpose is to combine linguistic and ethnic history and to proceed to its (fragmentary) reconstruction. Accordingly, our purpose is as simple as it can be for such a wide scope topic: to reconstruct the form, meaning and origin of the Old Slavic lexicon and to extract, if possible, more information about the history of the Slavic people from these linguistic data. The work of reconstructing the Common Slavic lexicon is being carried out in Moscow and Cracow, as far as the major new etymological dictionaries are concerned. A considerably larger number of scholars are concerned with these problems in Russia than in other countries. A reliable reconstruction of words and meanings is the key to any reconstruction of the culture. Why did the Slavs replace the IE name of the 'harrow' by a new word? How did the Ancient Slavs get a term for the process of 'paying'? What are we to think about the case of 'the Slavs and the sea'? How did a word for 'ship' appear among the Slavs? We now know how to answer these and many other questions (we shall revert later to the case of the sea), but the motivation of many other words remains as obscure as before. Others have fallen into oblivion and survive at best on the onomastic level - hence, our keen interest for onomastics and such new works as the Dictionary of Ukrainian waternames [2] that expand our knowledge of the Old Slavic common lexicon and provide new insights into onomastics proper, e.g. the Slavic toponymic 'superdialect,' the existence of genuine Slavic waternames (i.e. those without appellative stage, e.g. *morica and its continuations in different areas of Slavic hydronymy). It is not possible to determine the earliest area the Slavs occupied or, at least, their original homeland without studying etymology and onomastics. How can this question be solved? There are straightforward ways to do it (e.g. by marking off an area with many or only purely Slavic placenames and waternames), but there must also be subtler, more accurate ways. What happened to the lexicon and the onomastics of an ancient people at the time of migration? Did it name only what it saw and knew itself? Our studies show that "a people's vocabulary transcends its actual experience" [3, p. XLVII] ; thus, it preserves not only its own fossilized experience, but a foreign "hearsay" experience as well. The Slavic written tradition begins at a relatively late date - from the IXth century. But any Slavic word or name, although unwritten, can be a record, a memento reflected at some time in another language. Thus, the personal name of a king of the Antae - rex Boz. (in Jordanes [Vlth century] usually interpreted as Bozi 'God's), reflects an early Slavic vozi or vozi, Russian dial. voz (a calque of rex = voh), learned vozd?'chief, leader', already palatalized in the IVth century (the time of the described events and of the person named) - practically an up-to-date form!
The boundaries between Semantics and Pragmatics still deserve to be investigated, since they remain unclear for many linguists, and since the word "pragmatics" has quite often been used among Brazilian linguists in an unscientific, rhetorical way, to enhance the importance of some approaches to meaning and interpretation. This paper claims that a theoretically sound boundary can be drawn between semantical and pragmatical approaches if we look at the way they deliver interpretations. Semantic interpretations are typically the result of some kind of calculus, whereas pragmatic interpretations are typically the result of some working out where no calculus intervenes, rather a highly specific solution is sought in order to integrate some unexpected fact into a coherent story. Thus defined, Semantics and Pragmatics can be referred to as deduction and abduction, respectively. In the light of the distinction just described, I revisit some of the phenomena that were pointed out in the last decades as best examples of the pragmatic functioning of natural language. I argue that presupposition, deixis and speech acts, highly predictable from lexicon and grammar, are semantical in nature; on dle contrary, implicature, since it depends on abductive thinking and it is not predictable from linguistic form, is described as a pragmatic phenomenon par excellence.
In this paper we provide an account of the historical development of Polish and Russian sibilants. The arguments provided here are of theoretical interest because they show that (i) certain allophonic rules are driven by the need to keep contrasts perceptually distinct, (ii) (unconditioned) sound changes result from needs of perceptual distinctiveness, and (iii) perceptual distinctiveness can be extended to a dass of consonants, i.e. the sibilants. The analysis is cast within Dispersion Theory by providing phonetic and typological data supporting the perceptual distinctiveness claims we make.
In this article I reanalyze sibilant inventories of Slavic languages by taking into consideration acoustic, perceptive and phonological evidence. The main goal of this study is to show that perception is an important factor which determines the shape of sibilant inventories. The improvement of perceptual contrast essentially contributes to creating new sibilant inventories by (i) changing the place of articulation of the existing phonemes (ii) merging sibilants that are perceptually very close or (iii) deleting them. It has also been shown that the symbol š traditionally used in Slavic linguistics corresponds to two sounds in the IPA systemsystem: it stands for a postalveolar sibilant (ʃ) in some Slavic languages, as e.g. Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak, some Serbian and Croatian dialects, whereas in others like Polish, Russian, Lower Sorbian it functions as a retroflex (s). This discrepancy is motivated by the fact that ʃ is not optimal in terms of maintaining sufficient perceptual contrast to other sibilants such as s and ç. If ʃ occurs together with s and sj there is a considerable perceptual distance between them but if it occurs with ç in an inventory, the distance is much smaller. Therefore, the strategy most languages follow is the change from a postalveolar to a retroflex sibilant.
In this paper it is argued that several typologically unrelated languages share the tendency to avoid voiced sibilant affricates. This tendency is explained by appealing to the phonetic properties of the sounds, and in particular to their aerodynamic characteristics. On the basis of experimental evidence it is shown that conflicting air pressure requirements for maintaining voicing and frication are responsible for the avoidance of voiced affricates. In particular, the air pressure released from the stop phase of the affricate is too high to maintain voicing which in consequence leads to a devoicing of the frication part.