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
Contrastive focus
(2007)
The article puts forward a discourse-pragmatic approach to the notoriously evasive phenomena of contrastivity and emphasis. It is argued that occurrences of focus that are treated in terms of "contrastive focus", "kontrast" (Vallduví & Vilkuna 1998) or "identificational focus" (É. Kiss 1998) in the literature should not be analyzed in familiar semantic terms like introduction of alternatives or exhaustivity. Rather, an adequate analysis must take into account discourse-pragmatic notions like hearer expectation or discourse expectability of the focused content in a given discourse situation. The less expected a given content is judged to be for the hearer, relative to the Common Ground, the more likely a speaker is to mark this content by means of special grammatical devices, giving rise to emphasis.
New evidence is provided for a grammatical principle that singles out contrastive focus (Rooth 1996; Truckenbrodt 1995) and distinguishes it from discourse-new “informational” focus. Since the prosody of discourse-given constituents may also be distinguished from discourse-new, a three-way distinction in representation is motivated. It is assumed that an F-feature marks just contrastive focus (Jackendoff 1972, Rooth 1992), and that a G-feature marks discoursegiven constituents (Féry and Samek-Lodovici 2006), while discoursenew is unmarked. A crucial argument for G-marking comes from second occurrence focus (SOF) prosody, which arguably derives from a syntactic representation where SOF is both F-marked and G-marked. This analysis relies on a new G-Marking Condition specifying that a contrastive focus may be G-marked only if the focus semantic value of its scope is discourse-given, i.e. only if the contrast itself is given.
This article takes stock of the basic notions of Information Structure (IS). It first provides a general characterization of IS — following Chafe (1976) — within a communicative model of Common Ground (CG), which distinguishes between CG content and CG management. IS is concerned with those features of language that concern the local CG. Second, this paper defines and discusses the notions of Focus (as indicating alternatives) and its various uses, Givenness (as indicating that a denotation is already present in the CG), and Topic (as specifying what a statement is about). It also proposes a new notion, Delimitation, which comprises contrastive topics and frame setters, and indicates that the current conversational move does not entirely satisfy the local communicative needs. It also points out that rhetorical structuring partly belongs to IS.
Die Problematik des sprachkommunikativen Umgangs mit dem Kulturphänomen "Phraseologie" ist im Falle zwei- bzw. mehrsprachiger Diskursgemeinschaften bisher kaum ins Blickfeld der Forschung geraten. Daher konzentriert sich der vorliegende Aufsatz auf Aspekte phraseologischer Sprachverwendung in einem komplexen Konrakt-, Konvergenz- und Integrationsraum von mehreren Sprachen und Kulturen und möchte zur Modelierung bi- bzw. multilingualen Diskursverhaltens im Hinblick auf die Phraseologie beitragen, indem er ein breites Spektrum von enmpirischen Manifestationsklassen bzw. -typen kommunikativen Synkretismus und sprachlicher Hybridität erfasst, systematisiert, beschreibt und evaluiert. Diese Forschungsfrage erlangt auch insofern eine besondere Bedeutung, als sich die Mehrschichtigkeit bilingualer Variationsdimensionen gerade anhand der Phraseologieverwendung aspektreich eruieren Iässt.
Der vorliegende kurze Beitrag [hat] das Ziel, im diskutierten Problemrahmen konstitutive Aspekte der Horizonte, Konturen und Fluchtlinien einer dezidiert inter- bzw. transkulturellen Ausrichtung der Sprachwissenschaft anzudeuten und zu hinterfragen, ihre disziplinären Wege und Blickfelder anzulegen sowie über ein inter- bzw.transkulturelles ,,Paradigma" als "interkulturelle Linguistik" im Hinblick auf Profil, Tragfähigkeit und Reichweite zu reflektieren. All das soll dann zu einer extensionalen und intensionalen Bestimmung einer "interkulturellen Linguistik" hinführen.
Ein aktuelles Handbuch der empirischen Sozialforschung stellt fest: „Die meisten Theorien in den Sozialwissenschaften sind relativ ungenau formuliert und beziehen sich auf nicht exakt definierte Begriffe“ (SCHNELL/HILL/ESSER 2005: 11). Die Linguistik – so auch die Sprachgermanistik – sollte aus dieser Kritik produktive Konsequenzen ziehen und dezidierte Anstöße für eine theoretisch fundierte und empiriegestützte Begriffs- und Konzeptbildung von IKK erarbeiten. Nicht zuletzt mit der Intention, dass die IKK als Phänomentyp kein „weicher“ Forschungsgegenstand mehr bleiben darf und dementsprechend die IKK-Forschung nicht mehr als „weiche“ Wissenschaft gelten sollte.
This paper is concerned with the cultural reality characterised by the cmmunication within bi- or multilingual groups, in comparison to monolingual comniunication. In other words, such groups use their varieties of language differently. In this respect the paper deals with a culture of multilingualisrn, with a primary aim of highlighting subtly the characteristics end structure of the bi- or multilingual way of speaking. In particular, the predominant goal of this study is to emphasize respects of the "mixed" speech behaviour (the bilingual inode of discourse); and of innovations in speech and communication of transcultural bi- or multilingualism utilizing the example of the German as a minority language in Hungary. On the basis of the research it has become clear that linguistic variations and differentes should not be viewed automatically as individual mistakes but as a reaction to a new conununicative challenge. The conclusions for the discipline of "applird lingusitics" encompass that: all outcornes of communicative dynamic processes on the system of language concerning monolingual as well as bilingual language behaviour (inclusive of both "natural" and "artificial" bi- or multilingualism), should be considered more subtly both in theory and practice. In addition these outcomes must be analysed and heuristically described within an integrated frame.
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.
The renowned Grimm Dictionary (1854-1961) makes the statement that the German copula sein (to be) is “the most general and colourless of all verbal concepts” (der allgemeinste und farbloseste aller verbalbegriffe). A more concise summary of the linguistic issues surrounding the copula is hardly possible. These two properties (and the latent tension between them!) make copulas a particularly interesting and vexing subject of linguistic research. Copulas appear to be almost colourless, i.e., devoid of any concrete meaning, thus leading to the question of why such expressions exist at all, not only in German but in the majority of the world’s languages. And at the same time copulas presumably provide the best window into the core of verbal concepts thereby telling us what it actually means to be a verb – at least in a language like German or English. While there is a rather rich body of research on copulas in philosophical and formal semantics including several in-depth studies on the copular systems of individual languages, copulas have received comparably little attention from a typological perspective. The monograph of Regina Pustet sets out to fill this gap. She presents an extensive cross-linguistic study of copula usage based on a sample of 154 languages drawn from the language families of the world. The analysis is embedded in the theoretical framework of functional typology. The study aims at uncovering universal principles that govern the distribution of copulas in nominal, adjectival, and verbal predications. Its major objective is the development of a “semantically-based model of copula distribution” (p.62) by means of which the presence vs. absence of copulas can be motivated through the inherent meaning of the lexical items they potentially combine with. Drawing mainly on the work by Givón (1979, 1984) and Croft (1991, 2001), who provide a functional foundation of the traditional parts of speech, Pustet identifies four semantic parameters which, if taken together, are claimed to support substantial generalisations on copula distribution – within a given language as well as crosslinguistically. These parameters are DYNAMICITY, TRANSIENCE, TRANSITIVITY, and DEPENDENCY. Pustet goes on to argue – and this is in fact the driving force behind the overall monograph – that the distributional behaviour of copulas, in turn, yields a useful methodology for developing a general approach to lexical categorization. Thus, in the long run Pustet aims at contributing to a better understanding of the traditional parts of speech, noun, adjective, and verb by defining them in terms of “semantic feature bundles, which can be arranged in [a] coherent semantic similarity space” (p.193).