Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (1214)
- Part of a Book (784)
- Conference Proceeding (607)
- Working Paper (254)
- Review (181)
- Preprint (122)
- Book (108)
- Part of Periodical (64)
- Report (58)
- Doctoral Thesis (23)
Language
- English (1837)
- German (1054)
- Croatian (298)
- Portuguese (120)
- Turkish (43)
- Multiple languages (24)
- French (21)
- mis (16)
- Spanish (7)
- Polish (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3433) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (436)
- Syntax (152)
- Linguistik (127)
- Englisch (123)
- Semantik (112)
- Spracherwerb (97)
- Phonologie (86)
- Rezension (77)
- Kroatisch (68)
- Fremdsprachenlernen (67)
Institute
- Extern (438)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) Mannheim (113)
- Neuere Philologien (43)
- Sprachwissenschaften (43)
- Universitätsbibliothek (5)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (3)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Medizin (2)
- Präsidium (2)
- SFB 268 (2)
Tema je našega rada položaj zamjeničkoga pridjeva sam uz naglašeni oblik povratne zamjenice (sebe) unutar konstrukcija s pravim povratnim glagolima. U tim konstrukcijama zamjenički pridjev sam može biti u akuzativu ili u nominativu (hvalim sam sebe / hvalim samog sebe). Poznato je svojstvo zamjeničkoga pridjeva sam da u pojačajnome značenju najčešće slijedi iza lične zamjenice, ali prethodi imenicama (On sam to radi. / Sama Marija to radi.). Cilj je ovoga istraživanja utvrditi koji mu je neobilježeni položaj uz povratnu zamjenicu te ponaša li se drukčije s obzirom na red riječ kad je u nominativnome ili u akuzativnome obliku.
The aim of this paper is to provide a syntactico-semantic analysis of hybrid coordination, in which what is coordinated are phrases bearing different grammatical functions and different semantic roles. The proposed account improves on previous HPSG analyses by giving up the assumption that all conjuncts are dependents of the same head and, more importantly, by taking into account the syntax–semantics interface and providing semantic representations. This aspect of the analysis builds on and generalizes previous HPSG work on polyadic quantification.
U radu se prikazuju rezultati terenskoga istraživanja o pomicanju naglasaka u imenskih riječi na prednaglasnicu, odnosno o praslavenskom prijenosu siline unutar naglasne cjeline u čakavskome govoru Crikvenice. Pomicanje se naglasaka na prednaglasnicu provodi dosljedno u svima razmatranim kategorijama (osim u brojeva) u kojima su zadovoljeni ovi uvjeti: prvotni silazni naglasak na prvome (ili jedinome) slogu osnove one riječi koja čini naglasnu cjelinu s prijedlogom ispred sebe. U akuzativu su imenica muškoga i ženskoga roda zabilježene alternacije. Pomicanje naglasaka na prednaglasnicu u nekim primjerima srednjega roda u L jd. zahvaća i drugotne silazne naglaske koji su se na prvome slogu osnove našli naknadno, zbog naglasnoga ujednačavanja paradigme ili naglasnoga tipa.
Dragutin Antun Parčić svojim nam je leksikografskim opusom u trajno nasljeđe ostavio niz dvojezičnih rječnika, talijansko-hrvatskih i hrvatsko-talijanskih, od kojih je Rječnik hrvatsko-talijanski, tiskan 1901. godine, svakako kruna njegova leksikografskoga rada. Iako bogat izvor nazivlja, rječnik je do danas nedovoljno istražen. Cilj je ovoga rada usporediti pomorsko nazivlje koje Parčić donosi u svome rječniku s pomorskim nazivljem koje pola stoljeća kasnije Adolf Bratoljub Klaić zapisuje u Rječniku stranih riječi. Analiza suvremenoga pomorskog nazivoslovlja pokazuje da su noštromizmi, tj. hrvatskome jeziku prilagođeni pomorski nazivi mediteranskoga, uglavnom talijanskoga porijekla, u uzusnoj uporabi, dok je u normativnoj literaturi prednost dana hrvatskome nazivlju. Uzusno je strukovno nazivlje zabilježeno u suvremenim hrvatskim pomorskim rječnicima i rječnicima stranih riječi, a osim noštromizama zapisanih u rječnicima iz 19. stoljeća uvodi se novo nazivlje pod utjecajem engleskoga kao međunarodnoga jezika prometa i pomorstva. U radu se osim u Klaićevu i Parčićevu rječniku propituju zapisi pomorskih leksikografa iz 19. stoljeća.
This article provides a comprehensive overview of the contribution of linguistic research on Portuguese as a heritage language in Germany to the general understanding of heritage language development. From 1955 to 1973, nearly 166,000 Portuguese migrants found work in Germany as so-called ‘guest workers’ (Gastarbeiter). Because the aim of many Portuguese migrant families was to return to Portugal, their children met relatively good conditions for the acquisition of their heritage language. Nonetheless, second-generation heritage speakers (HSs) show some linguistic particularities in comparison to monolingual Portuguese speakers in Portugal. Based on the results of previous research, we show that the following factors shape the linguistic knowledge of this group of bilinguals: (1) Restricted exposure to the heritage language may cause a delay in the development of certain linguistic structures, (2) deviations from the standard norm may be related to the lack of formal education and the primacy of the colloquial register and (3) heritage bilinguals may accelerate ongoing diachronic development. We argue that apparent effects of influence from the environmental language can often have alternative explanations.
Part-of-Speech tagging is generally performed by Markov models, based on bigram or trigram models. While Markov models have a strong concentration on the left context of a word, many languages require the inclusion of right context for correct disambiguation. We show for German that the best results are reached by a combination of left and right context. If only left context is available, then changing the direction of analysis and going from right to left improves the results. In a version of MBT (Daelemans et al., 1996) with default parameter settings, the inclusion of the right context improved POS tagging accuracy from 94.00% to 96.08%, thus corroborating our hypothesis. The version with optimized parameters reaches 96.73%.
In this study I want to show, above all, that the linguistic expression of POSSESSION is not a given but represents a problem to be solved by the human mind. We must recognize from the outset that linguistic POSSESSION presupposes conceptual or notional POSSESSION, and I shall say more about the latter in Chapter 3. Certain varieties of linguistic structures in the particular languages are united by the fact that they serve the common purpose of expressing notional POS SESSION. But this cannot be their sole common denominator. How would we otherwise be able to recognize, to understand, to learn and to translate a particular linguistic structure as representing POSSESSION? There must be a properly linguistic common denominator, an invariant, that makes this possible. The invariant must be present both within a particular language and in cross-language comparison. What is the nature of such an invariant? As I intend to show, it consists in operational programs and functional principles corresponding to the purpose of expressing notional POSSESSION. The structures of possessivity which we find in the languages of the world represent the traces of these operations, and from the traces it becomes possible to reconstruct stepwise the operations and functions.
This paper deals with restitutive and repetitive 'wieder'. Proceeding from the assumption that adverbial adjuncts have base positions which reflect their semantic relations to the rest of the sentence, it is shown that repetitive 'wieder' belongs to the class of event adverbs minimally c-commanding the base positions of all arguments whereas restitutive 'wieder' has many properties in common with process adjuncts, minimally c-commanding the final verb.
This paper deals with restitutive and repetitive wieder. Proceeding from the assumption that adverbial adjuncts have base positions which reflect their semantic relations to the rest of the sentence, it is shown that repetitive wieder belongs to the class of event adverbs minimally c-commanding the base positions of all arguments whereas restitutive wieder has many properties in common with process adjuncts, minimally c-commanding the final verb.
This paper deals with expletives that are inserted into clauses for structural reasons. We will focus on the Germanic languages Danish, German, and Yiddish. In Danish and Yiddish expletives are inserted in preverbal position in certain wh-clauses: In Danish such an insertion is observed when the subject is locally extracted from an SVO configuration in non-assertive clauses. In Yiddish wh-clauses are formed from a wh-phrase and a V2 clause. If no element would be fronted in the embedded V2 clause, an expletive is inserted in non-assertive clauses in order to meet the V3 requirement for embedded clauses. In addition to embedded wh-clauses, declarative V2 clauses also allow the insertion of an expletive. In Danish the expletive fills the subject position and is not necessarily fronted. In German and Yiddish the expletive has to occur in fronted position. In contrast to Danish and Yiddish, German does not insert expletives into embedded wh-clauses. They are inserted only into declarative V2 clauses in order to fulfill the V2 requirement without having to front another constituent. In this paper we try to provide an account that captures the commonalities between the three languages while being able to account for the differences.