Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2006 (185) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (78)
- Conference Proceeding (43)
- Article (26)
- Preprint (16)
- Book (7)
- Report (7)
- Working Paper (7)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (148)
- German (31)
- French (3)
- Portuguese (2)
- mis (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (185)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (185)
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)
Focus theories distinguish different types of focus according to the pragmatic conditions or communicative point on the one side and different scopes of focus on the other side. The assertion in term focus constructions (Dik 1989), called by others argument focus constructions or identificational sentences (Lambrecht 1994), has the purpose of establishing a relation between an argument and an open proposition. Kar, a north-eastern Senufo language of Burkina Faso, which has the basic word order S-Aux-O-V-other, has at its disposal different strategies to mark argument focus, among them fronting of the focused item. In many West African languages the displacement of the focused argument involves other devices, such as the use of special verb forms. In Kar fronting of a focused argument requires the use of special pronouns in the out-of-focus part of the sentence, called background subject pronouns. They are used in other backgrounded contexts, too, for example in relative clauses, adverbial clauses and constituent questions. Their inconsistent use is attributed to a particular sociolinguistic situation in which the data has been collected. The use of the same focus strategies for completive and contrastive focus suggests that Kar does not distinguish pragmatic conditions on the level of sentence grammar.
Der traditionsreiche Kultur-, Kontakt- und Integrationsraum Schlesien stellt eine Region im Überlappungs- und Durchdringungsbereich von Kulturen, Religionen, Sprachen und Nationen dar, wo sich im historischen Verlauf eine spezielle Sensibilität für Probleme und Chancen kultureller und sprachlicher Pluralität sowie für die Geschichtlichkeit und Dynamik multikultureller Zusammenhänge entwickeln konnte. Daher verkörpert er ein besonders wertvolles Erinnerungsgut (vgl. zur Thematik Engel/Honsza 2001 und Lasatowicz 2004). Solche Regionen werden nun mit Blick auf ihre Ressourcen des multikulturellen Gedächtnisses im Zuge von gesamteuropäischen Prozessen – auch im Sinne einer neuen „mentalen Welt“ – zunehmend aufgewertet. Die kulturelle und sprachliche Situation, einschließlich der Sprach gebrauchsstrukturen, ist in derartigen multi-ethnischen Arealen im Spannungsfeld von mehreren Sprachen, Kulturen und Identitäten naturgemäß äußerst vielschichtig. Entsprechend dieser komplexen sprachkommunikativen Realität in Mehrsprachigkeits-Kulturen setzt ihre wissenschaftlich adäquate Erfassung, Beschreibung und Explizierung ein mehrperspektivisches multi-, inter- und transdisziplinäres Herangehen voraus. Denn die Bearbeitung der entsprechend weiten Fragestellungen erfordert einen relevanten Betrachtungsrahmen und eine angepasste Methodologie, die sowohl dem komplexen Gegenstand als auch den Erkenntnisinteressen der Praxis gerecht werden. Müssen doch die Linguisten mit der mannigfaltigen sprachkommunikativen Realität mindestens (a) systemorientiert, (b) soziologisch und (c) „technologisch“ umgehen und sie entsprechend reflektieren können. Da aber die Gesamtthematik – wie sie auch im Titel der Tagung zum Ausdruck kommt – einen etwas sperrigen Gegenstand bildet, konzentriert sich der vorliegende Beitrag lediglich auf einen besonders wichtigen Aspekt. Mithin lautet die erkenntnisleitende Forschungsfrage: Wie kann man inter- bzw. transkulturelle,4 bi- bzw. multilinguale Kommunikationsräume im Kontakt der Kulturen mit den für sie charakteristischen zweisprachigen Diskursmodi (die oft durch verschiedene Ausprägungen von Hybridität gekennzeichnet sind) in disziplinärer Hinsicht sinnvoll analysieren? Also in welchem generellen Verstehensrahmen bzw. unter welchem "Blickwinkel", im Kompetenzbereich welcher linguistischen Teildisziplin, mit welcher Methodologie lassen sich die im Blickpunkt stehenden sprachkommunikativen Konstellationen, bilingualen Sprechhandlungen und entsprechenden Kontakt-, Interaktions-, Überblendungs- und Konvergenzphänomene sachangemessen untersuchen und heuristisch interpretieren? Solche Fragen erlangen m.E. angesichts der aktuellen Fachentwicklung der Sprachwissenschaft zunehmend Relevanz. War doch im Rahmen der kartesischen Sicht noch eine Einheit von Rationalität und Wissenschaft gegeben, ist spätestens seit Thomas Kuhn (1996) klar geworden, dass man es heute mit einem Nach- und Nebeneinander verschiedener (z.T. sogar inkommensurabler) „Paradigmen“ (Kuhn 1996), „Denkstile“ (vgl. Fleck 2002), „disziplinärer Matrizes“ (Kuhn 1977, 392 f.) oder Wissenschaftskulturen als diskursive Terrains zu tun hat.
It is no secret that Gerhard Doerfer has argued strongly against a genetic relationship between the Mongolic and Tungusic languages. Ten years ago he presented a detailed analysis of the Mongolo-Tungusic vocabulary (1985). In the following I intend to show that his material allows of a quite different conclusion.
This report explores the question of compatibility between annotation projects including translating annotation formalisms to each other or to common forms. Compatibility issues are crucial for systems that use the results of multiple annotation projects. We hope that this report will begin a concerted effort in the field to track the compatibility of annotation schemes for part of speech tagging, time annotation, treebanking, role labeling and other phenomena.
Previous studies suggest that the application of Controlled Language (CL) rules can significantly improve the readability, consistency, and machine-translatability of source text. One of the justifications for the application of CL rules is that they can have a similar impact on several target languages by reducing the post-editing effort required to bring Machine Translation (Ml’) output to acceptable quality. In certain situations, however, post-editing services may not always be a viable solution. Web-based information is often expected to be made available in real-time to ensure that its access is not restricted to certain users based on their locale. Uncertainties remain with regard to the actual usefulness of MT output for such users, as no empirical study has examined the impact of CL rules on the usefulness, comprehensibility, and acceptability of MT technical documents from a Web user's perspective. In this study, a two-phase approach is used to determine whether Controlled English rules can have a significant impact on these three variables. First, individual CL rules are evaluated within an experimental environment, which is loosely based on a test suite.Two documents are then published and subject to a randomised evaluation within the framework of an online experiment using a customer satisfaction questionnaire. The findings indicate that a limited number of CL rules have a similar impact on the comprehensibility of French and German output at the segment level. The results of the online experiment show that the application of certain CL rules has the potential to significantly improve the comprehensibility of German MT technical documentation. Our findings also show that the introduction of CL rules did not lead to any significant improvement of the comprehensibility, usefulness, and acceptability of French MT technical documentation.
The material reported on in this paper is part of a set of experiments in which the role of Information Structure on L2 processing of words is tested. Pitch and duration of 4 sets of experimental material in German and English are measured and analyzed in this paper. The well-known finding that accent boosts duration and pitch is confirmed. Syntactic and lexical means of marking focus, however, do not give the duration and the pitch of a word an extra boost.
Prefácio (...) O Objectivo A finalidade deste livrinho é de publicar dados de uma língua minoritária para contribuir ao património cultural da nação moçambicana, de que Imarenje faz parte. O próximo passo será a implem-entação de mais correcções e modificações necessárias, seja nos detalhes ortográficos, seja na escolha de exemplos e frases. Neste sentido faço um apelo a todos que se interessam pelo desenvolvi-mento das línguas nacionais, em particular aos falantes de Imarenje: Façam comentários, contribuam para que futuras edições deste livrinho possam ser mais ricas! Oliver Kröger Editor da série Monografias Linguísticas Moçambicanas Nampula, Outubro de 2006
Agreement is traditionally viewed as a cross-referencing device for core arguments such as subjects and (primary) objects.1 In this paper, I discuss data from Bantu languages that lead to a radical departure from this generally accepted position: agreement in a subset of Bantu languages cross-references a (sentential) topic rather than the subject. The crucial evidence for topic agreement comes from a construction known as subject-object (S-O) reversal, where the fronted patient agrees with what has uniformly been taken to be a `subject marker'. The correct analysis of S-O reversal as a topic construction with `topic agreement' explains a range of known facts in the languages in question. Furthermore, synchronic variation across Bantu in the presence/absence of S-O reversal and in the properties of the (topic/subject) agreement marker suggests a diachronic path from topic to subject marking. The systematic variation and covariation in the syntax of Bantu languages and the historical picture that it offers would be missed altogether if we continue to reject the idea that the notion of topic can be deeply grammaticized in the form of agreement.
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).