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)
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)
On describing word order
(2006)
One aspect that is always discussed in language descriptions, no matter how short they may be, is word order. Beginning with Greenberg 1963, it has been common to talk about word order using expressions such as "X is an SOV language", where "S" represents "subject", "0" represents "object", and "V" represents "verb". Statements such as this are based on an assumption of comparability, an assumption that all languages manifest the categories represented by "S", "0", and "V" (among others), and that word order in all languages can be described (and compared) using these categories.
Based on a Relevance Theory-informed view of language development, this paper argues that grammatical relations are construction-specific conventionalizations (grammaticalizations) of implicatures which arise out of repeated patterns of reference to particular types of referents. Once conventionalized, these structures function to constrain the hearer's identification of referents in discourse. As they are construction-specific, and hence language-specific, there is no category "subject" across languages; different languages will either show this type of grammaticalization or not, and if they do, may show it or not in different constructions. Any cross-linguistic use of terms such as "subject" (and "S", as in "SOV") should then be avoided.
Sino-Tibetan languages
(2006)
The Sino-Tibetan (ST) language family includes the Sinitic languages (what for political reasons are known as Chinese ‘dialects’) and the 200 to 300 Tibeto-Burman (TB) languages. Geographically it stretches from Northeast India, Burma, Bangladesh, and northern Thailand in the southeast, throughout the Tibetan plateau to the north, across most of China and up to the Korean border in the northeast, and down to Taiwan and Hainan Island in the southeast. The family has come to be the way it is because of multiple migrations, often into areas where other languages were spoken (LaPolla, 2001).
Li Fang-Kuei (1902-1987)
(2006)
Fang-Kuei Li was one of the foremost scholars of Thai and Sino-Tibetan studies and a major contributor to Amerind studies. Born in China, he was one of the early scholars sent to the United States to study. He had developed an interest in language while learning English, Latin, and German as part of his studies in China, and so he decided to study linguistics in the United States. In 1924, he went to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, receiving his B.A. 2 years later, then moved to the University of Chicago, where he received his M.A. and Ph.D., studying with Edward Sapir, Leonard Bloomfield, and Carl Darling Buck.
Wang Li (1900-1986)
(2006)
Wenn Deutsch geschrieben wird, wird im Allgemeinen die standardsprachliche Form gewählt. King: nei nei nöd eso Häx ..... verschtasch mi wieder falsch :-( *sniff (bluewin.ch, #flirt60plus, 1.10.2004) Elle: HeinEr: öhm jez versteh ich gar nix mehr (Antenne Bayern #flirten40, 16.9.2005) Big: Mu auch niemand verstehen (IRCnet, #mannheim,9.2.2003) Tezo: verstehe (IRCnet, #linux, 7.1.2003) In Büchern, Zeitungen, Zeitschriften und auch im Internet ist die deutsche Standardsprache Standard. Sie ist die für die Schriftlichkeit normierte Varietät, die überregional verständlich sein soll. Diese Standardsprache ist zwar überall ähnlich, aber nicht gleich. So zeigen sich Besonderheiten im Lexikon, in der Wortbildung und vereinzelt in der Grammatik, welche in einer Region üblich sind, in der anderen jedoch nicht, oder die da eine andere Bedeutung tragen. Diese Besonderheiten sind aber nicht an einem Ort einfach falsch, sondern sie stellen regionale Ausprägungen des Standards dar (vgl. dazu das Variantenwörterbuch; Ammon u. a. 2004). ...
Die 15. Arbeitstagung zur alemannischen Dialektologie, zu der die Vorarlberger Landesregierung vom 18.–21.Septemer auf Schloss Hofen im vorarlbergischen Lochau bei Bregenz eingeladen hatte, hat wiederum einen Einblick in unterschiedliche aktuelle Forschungsaspekte der Dialektologie im Südwesten des deutschen Sprachgebiets geboten. Im dicht gedrängten Programm mit einer öffentlichen Präsentation des VALTS und des Tonarchivs der Mundarten Vorarlbergs von EUGEN GABRIEL und ARNO RUOF folgen sich an drei Tagen insgesamt 18 Vorträge, 10 Kurzvorträge, 14 Arbeitsberichte und ein dialektologischer Ausflug in den Bregenzer Wald. Im Folgenden werden die Vorträge in der präsentierten Reihenfolge referiert, während die zahlreichen Arbeitsberichte von Sprachatlanten, Wörter- und Namenbüchern sowie Tondokumentationsstellen nur pauschal erwähnt werden, welche einerseits einen Blick in die laufenden großen und größeren Projekte der alemannischen Dialektologie öffnen und andererseits die Finanzknappheit als übergreifendes Element der Dialektologie offenbaren.
Mention some of all
(2006)
In the interpretation of natural language one may distinguish three types of dynamics: there are the acts or moves that are made; there are structural relations between subsequent moves; and interlocutors reason about the beliefs and intentions of the participants in a particular language game. Building on some of the formalisms developed to account for the first two types of dynamics, I will generalize and formalize Gricean insights into the third type, and show by means of a case study that such a formalization allows a direct account of an apparent ambiguity: the ‘exhaustive’ versus the ‘mention some’ interpretation of questions and their answers. While the principles which I sketch, like those of Grice, are motivated by assumptions of rationality and cooperativity, they do not presuppose these assumptions to be always warranted.
In this paper, focusing on the relevance-theoretic view of cognition, I discuss the idea that what is communicated through an utterance is not merely an explicature upon which implicature(s) are recovered, but rather a propositional complex that contains both explicit and implicit information. More specifically, I propose that this information is constructed on the fly as the interpreter processes every lexical item in its turn while parsing the utterance in real time, in this way creating a string of ad hoc concepts. While hearing an utterance and incrementally constructing a context, the propositional complex communicated by an utterance is pragmatically narrowed and simultaneously pragmatically broadened in order to incorporate only the set of optimally relevant propositions with respect to a specific point in the interpretation. The narrowing of propositions from the initial context at each stage allows relevant propositions to be carried on to the new level, while their broadening adds to the communicated propositional complex new propositions that are linked to the lexical item that is processed at every step of the interpretation process.