Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2007 (211) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (100)
- Part of a Book (54)
- Preprint (12)
- Conference Proceeding (11)
- Review (11)
- Report (9)
- Working Paper (8)
- Book (4)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (211)
Keywords
- Kroatisch (35)
- Deutsch (18)
- Rezensionen (17)
- Referenzidentität (11)
- Englisch (10)
- Phraseologie (7)
- Spracherwerb (7)
- focus (7)
- Bedeutungswandel (6)
- Referenz <Linguistik> (6)
Institute
Complement control is a well-known phenomenon in Turkish linguistics, and different proposals for analysing it are available. The majority of these treat control as a structural phenomenon, cf. Kerslake (1987), Özsoy (1987; 2001) and Kural (1998). In sum, control is predicted only in sentences with complement clauses formed with the suffixes -mEk and -mE, which can be case-marked, but the appearance of a possessive marker definitely precludes control. As far as the control relations are concerned, the research so far has attested the classical cases of subject and object control. In addition to that, variable control is discussed by Taylan (1996). The status of the controlled element is discussed by Bozşahin (in press), which concludes that the syntactic subject is appointed by this function in Turkish.
In this paper I will argue that the currently established approach to control is insufficient. The shortcomings of a strictly configurational approach become clear if a broader perspective on control is adopted. I follow the approach to control outlined by Stiebels (this volume), and show that two types of control must be distinguished. Inherent control is encoded in the lexical entry of the verb. Verbs which show inherent control either select only control-inducing structures or trigger control in environments not requiring control. Structural control, on the other hand, arises through the use of a control-inducing structure with a verb which does not inherently require control. Structural control verbs show control only with control-inducing structures. No control occurs with such verbs in other configurations. The data discussed in this paper will show that control is a ‘mixed’ phenomenon, since it may arise structurally or semantically. Its explanation must therefore consider the semantics of the relevant matrix verbs and the syntactic properties of complement clauses on an equal basis.
While the Information Structure (IS) is most naturally interpreted as "structure of information", some may argue that it is structure of something else, and others may object to the use of the word "structure". This paper focuses on the question of whether the informational component can have structural properties such that it can be called "structure". The preliminary conclusion is that, althoughthere are some vague indications of structurehood in it, it is perhaps better understood to be a representation that encodes a finite set of information-based partitions, rather than structure.
Im ersten Teil wird zunächst die wenige Forschungsliteratur zum Thema Deskriptivität selbst und eng verwandten Themen vorgestellt und besprochen. Daraus soll sich im Anschluss auch eine Definition des Begriffes ergeben, die weit genug gefasst ist, um die übliche Verwendungsweise des Begriffs bei Autoren, die ihn zwar benutzen, aber nicht theoretisch behandeln, zu erfassen, die sich aber andererseits dennoch in klar definierten und nachvollziehbaren Grenzen bewegt. Dabei soll weiterhin deutlich werden, dass es sich bei Deskriptivität um ein prinzipiell in allen Sprachen anzutreffendes Phänomen handelt, dass sich aber die Frequenz deskriptiver Ausdrücke von Sprache zu Sprache stark unterscheiden kann. Dabei werde ich Daten aus ausgewählten Sprachen einbeziehen und eine quantitative Analyse des Ausmaßes, mit dem verschiedene Sprachen von deskriptiven Bildungen Gebrauch machen vorstellen. Der zweite Hauptteil der Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit folgender Frage: Wenn jede Sprache zu einem gewissen Grad von deskriptiven Benennungen Gebrauch macht, welche Mechanismen des Sprachwandels gibt es, die die Position einer Sprache auf dieser Skala in die eine oder die andere Richtung verändern können?
We adopt Markert and Nissim (2005)’s approach of using the World Wide Web to resolve cases of coreferent bridging for German and discuss the strength and weaknesses of this approach. As the general approach of using surface patterns to get information on ontological relations between lexical items has only been tried on English, it is also interesting to see whether the approach works for German as well as it does for English and what differences between these languages need to be accounted for. We also present a novel approach for combining several patterns that yields an ensemble that outperforms the best-performing single patterns in terms of both precision and recall.
We investigate methods to improve the recall in coreference resolution by also trying to resolve those definite descriptions where no earlier mention of the referent shares the same lexical head (coreferent bridging). The problem, which is notably harder than identifying coreference relations among mentions which have the same lexical head, has been tackled with several rather different approaches, and we attempt to provide a meaningful classification along with a quantitative comparison. Based on the different merits of the methods, we discuss possibilities to improve them and show how they can be effectively combined.
U ovome se radu pokušava dati pregled mnogobrojnih i raznolikih odraza svetačkog imena Juraj u hrvatskome antroponimijskom sustavu s osobitim naglaskom na područje Zažablja (prostora između rječice Misline, istočno od Metkovića, i zapadnih granica nekadašnje Dubrovačke Republike, a danas općine Dubrovačko primorje, te prostora od Hrasna na sjeveru do Neuma na jugu) i Popova (jugozapadne Hercegovine). Na temelju odabrane literature i autorova terenskog istraživanja nastoje se iznijeti i neke izvanjezične (poglavito povijesne i sociolingvističke) činjenice koje su uzrok takvu stanju.
U radu se analizira drugi cjeloviti objavljeni prijevod Svetoga pisma na hrvatski jezik, Škarićevo Sveto pismo Staroga i Novoga uvita (Beč, 1858. – 1861.); opisuju se njegove jezične osobine, utvrđuje se njegovo mjesto u dugoj hrvatskoj svetopisamskoj prevodilačkoj tradiciji te njegov utjecaj na proces standardizacije hrvatskoga jezika.