Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (15)
- Doctoral Thesis (11)
- Part of a Book (4)
- Conference Proceeding (4)
- Magister's Thesis (3)
- Contribution to a Periodical (2)
- Report (2)
- Book (1)
- magisterthesis (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (43)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (43)
Keywords
- Europa (2)
- German (2)
- Hagen <2001> (2)
- Kongress (2)
- L2 (2)
- Mehrsprachigkeit (2)
- Pragmatik (2)
- Semantik (2)
- (non-)gradable predicate (1)
- Adjective (1)
Institute
- Neuere Philologien (43) (remove)
This paper addresses a set of issues related to language documentation that are not often explicitly dealt with in academic publications, yet are highly important for the development and success of this new discipline. These issues include embedding language documentation in the socio-political context not only at the community level but also at the national level, the ethical and technical challenges of digital language archives, and the importance of regional and international cooperation among documentation activities. These issues play a major role in the initiative to set up a network of regional language archives in three South American countries, which this paper reports on. Local archives for data on endangered languages have recently been set up in Iquitos (Peru), Buenos Aires (Argentina), and in various locations in Brazil. An important feature of these is that they provide fast and secure access to linguistic and cultural data for local researchers and the language communities. They also make data safer by allowing for regular update procedures within the network.
If we want to develop a semantic analysis for explicit performatives such as I promise you to free Willy, we are faced with the following puzzle: In order to account for the speech act expressed by the performative verb, one can assume that the so-called performative clause is purely performative and provides the illocutionary force of the speech act whose content is given by the semantic object denoted by the complement clause. Yet under this perspective, the performative clause that is, next to the performative verb, the indexicals I and you that refer to the speaker and to the addressee of the utterance context is semantically invisible and does not contribute compositionally its meaning to the meaning of the entire explicit performative sentence. Conversely, if we account for the truth conditional contribution of the performative clause and deny that the meaning of the performative verb is purely performative, then we have to find a way to account for the speech act expressed by the performative verb. Of course, there is already the widely accepted and very appealing indirectness account for explicit performative utterances developed by Bach & Harnish (1979). Roughly, Bach and Harnish solve this puzzle in deriving the performativity by means of a pragmatic inference process. According to them, the important speech act performed by means of the utterance of the explicit performative sentence is a kind of the conventionalized indirect speech act. However, the boundary between semantics and pragmatics can be drawn in many various ways. Therefore, I think there could be other perspectives regarding the interface between the truth-functional treatment of the declarative explicit performative sentences and the speech acts performed with their utterances and which are expressed by the performative verbs. Hence, this thesis consists in the experiment to develop a further analysis and to check out its consequences with respect to the semantics and pragmatics of explicit performative utterances and the new interface emerged. Briefly, the experiment runs as follows: First, I develop an analysis for explicit performative sentences framed by parenthetical structures such as in (1)(a). In a second step, this parenthetical analysis is applied to the proper Austinian explicit performative sentences in (1)(b). (1) a. Tomorrow, I promise you this, I will teach them Tyrolean songs. b. I promise you that I will teach them Tyrolean songs. To analyze at first explicit performatives framed by parenthetical structures bears the convenience that we are faced with two utterances of two main clauses. In (1)(a) there is the utterance of the host sentence Tomorrow I will teach them Tyrolean songs, and the utterance of the explicit parenthetical I promise you this, where the demonstrative this refers to the utterance of Tomorrow I will teach them Tyrolean songs. Since speakers perform speech acts with utterances of main clauses, I assume that the meaning of the explicit parenthetical I promise you this specifies that the actual illocutionary force of the utterance of Tomorrow I will teach them Tyrolean songs is the illocutionary force of a promise. Hence, instead of deriving an indirect illocutionary force by means of a pragmatic inference schema, we can deal with an ordinary direct speech act that is performed with the utterance of the host sentence. This kind of analysis stresses the particular discourse function of explicit performative utterances. Performative verbs are used whenever the contextual information is not sufficient to determine the illocutionary force of the corresponding implicit speech act. The resulting consequences of the parenthetical analysis are interesting since they cast a different light on performative verbs. Surprisingly, the performative verbs are not performative at all. They do not constitute the execution of a speech act, but are execution supporting. Instead of constituting the particular illocutionary force, they merely specify the illocutionary force of the utterance of the host sentence. For instance, the speaker utters the explicit parenthetical I promise you this for specifying what he is simultaneously doing. Hence the speaker does not succeed in performing the promise simply because he is uttering I promise you this. Rather, by means of the information conveyed by the utterance of I promise you this, the potential illocutionary forces of the utterance of the host sentence are disambiguated. Thus, it is not the case that explicit parentheticals are trivially true when uttered. Their function is more complex. Their self-verifying property (‘saying so makes it so’) is explained by means of disambiguation. Furthermore, according to the parenthetical analysis, instead of being purely performative, the performative verbs contribute compositionally their meanings to the truth conditions of the entire explicit performative sentence. Together with its consequences, this analysis is applied to the proper Austinian performatives, which display subordination. I assume that regardless of their structure, explicit performatives always semantically and pragmatically behave as the parenthetical analysis predicts.
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 vorliegende Arbeit befasst sich mit einem spezifischen Phänomen innerhalb der Sprachphilosophie und der linguistischen Pragmatik – den explizit performativen Äußerungen (Austin 1979). Im Zentrum der Arbeit stehen die detaillierte Explikation und der kritische Vergleich zweier prominenter Erklärungsmodelle von Performativen: Einerseits Bach/Harnish’s (1979) Analyse dieser Äußerungen als indirekte Sprechakte, andererseits Searle’s (1989) Behandlung von Performativen als Deklarationen. Die Arbeit gliedert sich wie folgt. Kapitel 1 führt die terminologischen Grundlagen ein und dient der Darstellung des Performativitätsproblems. Kapitel 2 befasst sich mit der Nachzeichnung der Standardisierten Indirektheit von Performativen nach Bach/Harnish (1979) und der Kritik an diesem Modell. Nach einer Einführung in das intentionale Kommunikationsmodell von Grice erfolgt eine Darstellung der allgemeinen Prinzipien von Bach/Harnish’s Kommunikationstheorie, die in expliziter Anlehnung an Grice konzipiert ist. Grundlage für die Behandlung der Analyse expliziter Performative ist vor allem die Darstellung des Speech Act Schema, also des inferentiellen Rasters, das Bach/Harnish sprachlicher Kommunikation zugrunde legen, sowie die Erläuterung der Begriffe der Konventionalisierung und Standardisierung. Die eigentliche Darstellung der Theorie präsentiert zwei unterschiedliche Muster zur inferentiellen Entschlüsselung der indirekten Bedeutung explizit performativer Äußerungen und schließt mit einem Modell, das die beiden Indirektheitsanalysen und Standardisierung integriert. Die Kritik wägt beide Indirektheitsanalysen gegeneinander ab, befasst sich mit der generellen Frage, ob Performative die Eigenschaften indirekter Sprechakte besitzen und untersucht, inwiefern die Annahme des Vollzugs eines assertiven Aktes mit Performativen problematisch ist. Kapitel 3 wendet sich der Searle’schen Deklarationsanalyse performativer Äußerungen zu. Zu Beginn werden die Grundlagen dieses Modells verfügbar gemacht. Dazu wird, neben einem kurzen Überblick über Searle’s Theorie auf dem Stand von „Sprechakte“ (1971), seine Klassifikation illokutionärer Akte detailliert dargestellt. Vor diesem Hintergrund erfolgt die Nachzeichnung des Deklarationsansatzes. In der anschließenden kritischen Betrachtung des Modells wird die Idee der Intentionsmanifestation diskutiert und es wird geprüft ob sich die unterstellte Existenz einer assertiven illokutionären Rolle von Performativen bestätigen lässt. Insbesondere wird schließlich die illokutionäre Kategorie der Deklarationen hinterfragt. Kapitel 4 dient einer vergleichenden Gegenüberstellung der beiden zuvor behandelten Theorien und versucht abzuwägen, welcher Ansatz die Funktion und Eigenschaften explizit performativer Äußerungen besser erfasst. In Kapitel 5 wird der Versuch unternommen, eine alternative Sicht zu entwickeln. Das besondere kommunikative Potential der Klasse der explizit performativen Äußerungen wird dabei mit ihren semantischen und pragmatischen Aspekten in Verbindung gebracht. Auf diese Weise soll ein Ansatz verfolgt werden, der die deskriptive Eigenschaft von Performativen mit ihrer optionalen performativen Verwendung in Beziehung setzt, ohne diese auf eine assertive illokutionäre Rolle zurückführen zu müssen. Kapitel 6 dient einer abschließenden und resümierenden Betrachtung der im Verlauf der Arbeit unternommenen Überlegungen
Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit? Dies ist eine Arbeit über Websites. Darüber, wie sie gelesen und geschrieben werden und wie man das lernen kann. Da es in dieser Arbeit um Lesen, Schreiben und Lernen geht, fließen in sie sowohl Aspekte der Sprachwissenschaft als auch der Sprachdidaktik ein. Was will diese Arbeit? Diese Arbeit hat zwei Ziele, ein sprachwissenschaftliches und ein sprachdidaktisches. In sprachwissenschaftlicher Hinsicht sollen, auf der Grundlage einer gründlichen Analyse seiner Eigenschaften, die Besonderheiten des Lesens und Schreibens im World Wide Web herausgearbeitet werden. Aufbauend auf dieser Analyse sollen im sprachdidaktischen Teil der Arbeit die Kompetenzen ermittelt und in Beziehung zueinander gesetzt werden, die zur Erstellung von Websites notwendig sind. Das so entstehende Kompetenzmodell bildet die Basis für eine zielgerichtete, effektive und evaluierbare Umsetzung der Gestaltung von Websites in der Schule und die Grundlage für weiterführende empirische Arbeiten. Wie ist die Arbeit aufgebaut? Im ersten Kapitel der Arbeit wird die Entwicklung der technischen und strukturellen Formate geschildert, welche die Grundlage des Websiteformats bilden. Darauf aufbauend werden seine wichtigsten Eigenschaften beschrieben. Im zweiten Kapitel wird das Websiteformat von anderen kommunikativen Formaten abgegrenzt und mit Hilfe der besonderen Charakteristika, die es besitzt, sein überwältigender Erfolg erklärt. Im dritten Kapitel wird unter Rückgriff auf Ergebnisse der Leseforschung und empirische Untersuchungen zum Lesen im World Wide Web erarbeitet, welchen Einfluss das Websiteformat auf das Lesen von Texten hat und welche Unterschiede es zum Lesen von Texten in anderen kommunikativen Formaten gibt. Auf dieser Grundlage wird ein Bewertungs- und Analyseraster für die Lesbarkeit von Texten im Websiteformat entwickelt. Im vierten Kapitel wird auf der Grundlage verschiedener Modelle des Schreibprozesses dargestellt, was das Schreiben für das Websiteformat vom Schreiben für andere Formate unterscheidet, was dabei besonders beachtet werden muss und welche Entwicklungen für die Zukunft zu erwarten sind. Dabei werden, unter Berücksichtigung des in Kapitel drei erarbeiteten Bewertungs- und Analyserasters, Hinweise für eine sinnvolle Vorgehensweise bei der Gestaltung von Websites gegeben. Im fünften Kapitel wird vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen bildungspolitischen Diskussion ein Kompetenzmodell für die Gestaltung von Websites entwickelt, das als Basis für die Festlegung von Bildungsstandards und die Beschreibung der Rahmenbedingungen dient, unter denen diese in der Schule verwirklicht werden können. In einer abschließenden Diskussion werden die wichtigsten Ergebnisse nochmals herausgearbeitet und es wird auf Perspektiven für zukünftige sprachwissenschaftliche und sprachdidaktische Forschungsvorhaben hingewiesen.
This paper argues that short (clause-internal) scrambling to a pre-subject position has A properties in Japanese but A'-properties in German, while long scrambling (scrambling across sentence boundaries) from finite clauses, which is possible in Japanese but not in German, has A'-properties throughout. It is shown that these differences between German and Japanese can be traced back to parametric variation of phrase structure and the parameterized properties of functional heads. Due to the properties of Agreement, sentences in Japanese may contain multiple (Agro- and Agrs-) specifiers whereas German does not allow for this. In Japanese, a scrambled element may be located in a Spec AgrP, i.e. an A- or L-related position, whereas scrambled NPs in German can only appear in an AgrP-adjoined (broadly-L-related) position, which only has A'-properties. Given our assumption that successive cyclic adjunction is generally impossible, elements in German may not be long scrambled because a scrambled element that is moved to an adjunction site inside an embedded clause may not move further. In Japanese, long distance scrambling out of finite CPs is possible since scrambling may proceed in a successive cyclic manner via embedded Spec- (AgrP) positions. Our analysis of the differences between German and Japanese scrambling provides us with an account of further contrasts between the two languages such as the existence of surprising asymmetries between German and Japanese remnant-movement phenomena, and the fact that unlike German, Japanese freely allows wh-scrambling. Investigation of the properties of Japanese wh-movement also leads us to the formulation of the "Wh-cluster Hypothesis", which implies that Japanese is an LF multiple wh-fronting language.
In this paper I discuss the properties of particle verbs in light of a proposal about syntactic projection. In section 2 I suggest that projection involves functional structure in two important ways: (i) only functional phrases can be complements, and (ii) lexical heads that take complements and project must be inflected. In section 3, I show that the structure of particle verbs is not uniform with respect to (i) and (ii). On the one hand, a particle always combines with an inflected verb; in this respect, particle verbs look like verb-complement constructions. On the other hand, the particle is not a functional phrase and therefore is not a proper complement, which makes the combination of the particle and the verb look more like a morphologically complex verb. I argue that syntactic rules can in fact interpret the node dominating the particle and the verb as a projection and as a complex head. In section 4, I show that many of the characteristic properties of particle verbs in the Germanic languages follow from the fact that they are structural hybrids.