Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2008 (174) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (81)
- Part of a Book (31)
- Conference Proceeding (22)
- Preprint (20)
- Review (8)
- Report (4)
- Book (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Working Paper (2)
- magisterthesis (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (174)
Keywords
- Deutsch (20)
- Linguistik (20)
- Rezension (20)
- Germanistik (12)
- Russland (12)
- Metapher (9)
- Phonologie (9)
- Englisch (7)
- Kroatisch (7)
- Phonetik (7)
Institute
In dieser Arbeit wird der Interrelation zwischen kulturellen, kognitiven und kommunikativ-sprachlichen Phänomenen nachgegangen. Kulturelles prägt nicht nur das enzyklopädische Weltwissen, sondern beeinflusst auch die Sprache als System und den Sprachgebrauch. Kulturelles Wissen manifestiert sich in den Bedeutungen bestimmter Lexeme, in kulturgeprägten Weltwissensrepräsentationen, als Handlungsmusterwissen und Verhaltensstereotypkenntnis, sowie in Präferenzen für die Selektion, Anordnung und Kombination von sprachlichen Systemelementen lexikalischer wie morphosyntaktischer Art zu Textsortenexemplaren. Die der Übersetzungstätigkeit daraus erwachsenden Schwierigkeiten werden differenziert durchleuchtet.
In the course of the ME period, HAVE began to encroach on territory previously held by BE. According to Rydén and Brorström (1987); Kytö (1997), this occurred especially in iterative and durational contexts, in the perfect infinitive and modal constructions. In Early Modern English (henceforth EModE), BE was increasingly restricted to the most common intransitives come and go, before disappearing entirely in the 18th and 19th centuries. This development raises a number of questions, both historical and theoretical. First, why did HAVE start spreading at the expense of BE in the first place? Second, why was the change conditioned by the factors mentioned by Rydén and Brorström (1987) and Kytö (1997)? Third, why did the change take on the order of 800 years to go to completion? Fourth, what implications does the change have for general theories of auxiliary selection? In this paper we’ll try to answer the first question by focusing on one the earliest clearly identifiable advance of HAVE onto BE territory – its first appearance with the verb come, which for a number of reasons is an ideal verb to focus on. First, come is by far the most common intransitive verb, so we get large enough numbers for statistical analysis. Second, clauses containing the past participle of come with a form of BE are unambiguous perfects: they cannot be passives, and they did not continue into modern English with a stative reading like he is gone. Third, and perhaps most importantly, come selected BE categorically in the early stages of English, so the first examples we find with HAVE are clear evidence for innovation. We will present evidence from a corpus study showing that the first spread of HAVE was due to a ban on auxiliary BE in certain types of counterfactual perfects, and will propose an account for that ban in terms of Iatridou’s (2000) Exclusion theory of counterfactuals.
Die Geschichte der Beziehungen zwischen Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik im Rahmen der Germanistik in den letzten 50 Jahren ist durchaus wechselvoll: einer zunehmenden Abkühlung, ja Entfremdung auf der einen Seite steht auf der anderen das wachsende Interesse an gemeinsam fruchtbar zu beackernden Arbeitsfeldern gegenüber. Ein Streifzug durch die Jahrgänge der Siegener Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (LiLi) seit den frühen 70er Jahren gibt davon ebenso Zeugnis wie aktuelle Projekte kritischer Kooperation (Kasten/Neuland/Schönert 1997, Hoffmann/Kessler Hrsg. 2003) oder der Versuch einer wissenschaftsgeschichtlichen Aufarbeitung des Verhältnisses der beiden Fächer durch das Marbacher Literaturarchiv (Haß/König Hrsg. 2003). Im folgenden Beitrag wird ein kurzer Blick auf die diesbezügliche Situation in der Schweiz geworfen und ein konzeptueller Zugriff auf mögliche Berührungspunkte exemplarisch skizziert.
Several articulatory strategies are available during the production of /u/, all resulting in a similar acoustic output. /u/ has two main constrictions, at the velum and at the lips. A perturbation of either constriction can be compensated at the other one, e.g wider constriction at the velum by more lip protrusion, wider lip opening by more tongue retraction. This study investigates whether speakers use this relation under perturbation. Six speakers were provided with palatal prostheses which were worn for two weeks. Speakers were instructed to make a serious attempt to produce normal speech. Their speech was recorded via EMA and acoustics several times over the adaptation period. Formant values of /u/-productions were measured. Velar constriction width and lip protrusion were estimated. For four speakers a correlation between constriction width and lip protrusion was found. A negative correlation between lip protrusion and F1 or F2 could sometimes be observed, but no correlation occurred between constriction size and either of the formants. The results show that under perturbation speakers use motor equivalent strategies in order to adapt. The correlation between constriction size and lip protrusion is stronger than in studies investigating unperturbed speech. This could be because under perturbation speakers are inclined to try out several strategies in order to reach the acoustic target and the co-variability might thus be greater.
The study investigates the contribution of tactile and auditory feedback in the adaptation of /s/ towards a palatal prosthesis. Five speakers were recorded via electromagnetic articulography, at first without the prosthesis, then with the prosthesis and auditory feedback masked, and finally with the prosthesis and auditory feedback available. Tongue position, jaw position and acoustic centre of gravity of productions of the sound were measured. The results show that the initial adaptation attempts without auditory feedback are dependent on the prosthesis type and directed towards reaching the original tongue palate contact pattern. Speakers with a prosthesis which retracted the alveolar ridge retracted the tongue. Speakers with a prosthesis which did not change the place of the alveolar ridge did not retract the tongue. All speakers lowered the jaw. In a second adaptation step with auditory feedback available speakers reorganised tongue and jaw movements in order to produce more subtle acoustic characteristics of the sound such as the high amplitude noise which is typical for sibilants.
This dissertation is concerned with the phenomenon of intervention effects, observed in three different domains: wh-questions, alternative questions (AltQ) and Negative Polarity Item (NPI) licensing. I propose that these three domains share some common properties, namely, they all involve focus-sensitive licensing, and are thus sensitive to an intervening focus phrase. The overview of the dissertation is as follows. In chapter 2, I discuss the phenomenon of intervention effects in wh-questions, brought to light in the discussion of German in Beck (1996), and Korean in Beck and Kim (1997). The basic idea of their analysis is that quantifiers block LF wh-movement. I show that intervention effects are observed in many other languages, too, suggesting that the intervention effect has a universal character. I then point out some problems with the analysis proposed by Beck (1996) and Beck and Kim (1997). In chapter 3, I propose a new generalization of the wh-intervention effects, namely that the core set of interveners, which is crosslinguistically stable, consists of focus phrases (and not quantifiers in general). Furthermore, I argue that the wh-intervention effect is actually an instance of the more general intervention effect, the "Focus Intervention Effect", which says that in a focus-sensitive licensing construction, no independent focus phrase may intervene between the licensor Op and the licensee XP. The underlying idea is that the Q operator is a focus-sensitive operator and that wh-phrases in-situ are dependent (i.e., semantically deficient) focus elements, which must be associated with the Q operator in order to be interpreted. An intervening independent focus operator precisely blocks that association. I further propose that the domain of focus-sensitive licensing includes not only wh-licensing, but also AltQ-licensing and NPI-licensing. In chapter 4, I show that alternative questions are also subject to the focus intervention effect, just like wh-questions. I provide evidence that the intervention effect in wh-questions and in alternative questions should receive a parallel analysis, in terms of focus-sensitivity. In chapter 5, I discuss a third construction which is sensitive to the focus intervention effect: the licensing of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs). I show that focus consistently blocks NPI licensing, with data from German and Korean. I propose that NPIs are also semantically deficient focus elements, which need to be associated with a NEG operator. Finally, chapter 6 summarizes the intervention effects and suggests some topics for future research into the precise nature of the intervention effect.
Die Entwicklung eines individuellen Standards „vom grünen Tisch“ führt selten zu zufriedenstellenden Ergebnissen. Bei der automatischen Prüfung stellt man schnell fest, dass die „ausgedachten“ Regeln einer systematischen Anwendung nicht standhalten. Bei der Implementierung solcher Richtlinien stellt man fest, dass sie oft zu wenig konkret formuliert sind, wie z.B. „formulieren Sie Handlungsanweisungen knapp und präzise“. Wie jedoch kann ein Standard entwickelt werden, der zu einem Unternehmen, seiner Branche und Zielgruppen passt und für die automatische Prüfung implementiert werden kann? Sprachtechnologie hilft effizient bei der Entwicklung individueller Richtlinien. Durch Datenanalyse, Satzcluster und Parametrisierung entsteht ein textspezifischer individueller Standard. Ist damit aber der Gegensatz von Kreativität und Standardisierung aufgehoben?
In this paper, we present an open-source parsing environment (Tübingen Linguistic Parsing Architecture, TuLiPA) which uses Range Concatenation Grammar (RCG) as a pivot formalism, thus opening the way to the parsing of several mildly context-sensitive formalisms. This environment currently supports tree-based grammars (namely Tree-Adjoining Grammars (TAG) and Multi-Component Tree-Adjoining Grammars with Tree Tuples (TT-MCTAG)) and allows computation not only of syntactic structures, but also of the corresponding semantic representations. It is used for the development of a tree-based grammar for German.