Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2006 (78) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (78) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (78)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (78)
Keywords
- Thema-Rhema-Gliederung (19)
- Formale Semantik (18)
- Englisch (16)
- Lexikologie (11)
- Syntax (10)
- Deutsch (8)
- Bantusprachen (6)
- Sinotibetische Sprachen (4)
- Gradpartikel (3)
- Pragmatik (3)
Institute
- Extern (4)
Wang Li (1900-1986)
(2006)
Li Fang-Kuei (1902-1987)
(2006)
Fang-Kuei Li was one of the foremost scholars of Thai and Sino-Tibetan studies and a major contributor to Amerind studies. Born in China, he was one of the early scholars sent to the United States to study. He had developed an interest in language while learning English, Latin, and German as part of his studies in China, and so he decided to study linguistics in the United States. In 1924, he went to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, receiving his B.A. 2 years later, then moved to the University of Chicago, where he received his M.A. and Ph.D., studying with Edward Sapir, Leonard Bloomfield, and Carl Darling Buck.
Sino-Tibetan languages
(2006)
The Sino-Tibetan (ST) language family includes the Sinitic languages (what for political reasons are known as Chinese ‘dialects’) and the 200 to 300 Tibeto-Burman (TB) languages. Geographically it stretches from Northeast India, Burma, Bangladesh, and northern Thailand in the southeast, throughout the Tibetan plateau to the north, across most of China and up to the Korean border in the northeast, and down to Taiwan and Hainan Island in the southeast. The family has come to be the way it is because of multiple migrations, often into areas where other languages were spoken (LaPolla, 2001).
Based on a Relevance Theory-informed view of language development, this paper argues that grammatical relations are construction-specific conventionalizations (grammaticalizations) of implicatures which arise out of repeated patterns of reference to particular types of referents. Once conventionalized, these structures function to constrain the hearer's identification of referents in discourse. As they are construction-specific, and hence language-specific, there is no category "subject" across languages; different languages will either show this type of grammaticalization or not, and if they do, may show it or not in different constructions. Any cross-linguistic use of terms such as "subject" (and "S", as in "SOV") should then be avoided.
Chatten online
(2006)
Aus linguistischer Sicht besteht die "kommunikationsgeschichtliche Novität" des Chattens darin, dass Schrift „für die situationsgebundene, direkte und simultane Kommunikation" verwendet wird (Storrer 2001: 462), ohne in einem "systematischen Verhältnis zu einer vorgängigen oder nachträglichen Oralisierung" zu stehen (ebd.). Dabei ist natürlich auch von Interesse, wie die Teilnehmer des Chats miteinander Kontakt herstellen und mit welcher kommunikativen Grundhaltung die Äußerungen im Chat produziert und rezipiert werden (vgl. Beißwenger 2000: 39f.). Unter den Vorzeichen einer dezidiert medialen Fragestellung müssen darüber hinaus die performativen Übertragungs- und Verkörperungsbedingungen des Chats thematisiert werden (vgl. Wirth 2002a: 44).
Ziel dieses Artikels ist es, allgemeine Frage- und Problemstellungen bei der Untersuchung des Phänomens Fokus in ausgewählten Gur- und Kwasprachen vorzustellen, d.h. unsere Forschungsvorhaben kurz zu skizzieren, ohne dass wir bereits auf Ergebnisse eingehen können. Dieser Aufsatz gibt einen Überblick über das Forschungsfeld, damit verbundene Problemstellungen und die von uns anvisierten Aufgaben und Methoden: - Was verstehen wir unter Fokus? - Warum sind die Gur- und Kwasprachen für diese Untersuchung von Relevanz? - Welche Korrelationen lassen sich zwischen Struktur und semantisch/pragmatischen Merkmalen erkennen? - Welche Entwicklung haben Fokusstrukturen genommen? - Welche methodischen Grundlagen liegen unseren Untersuchungen zugrunde?
Reflexive pronouns as central anaphoric elements are subject to general principles determined by Universal Grammar and shared by all languages that use reflexives as part of their grammatical structure. In addition to these general conditions, there are language particular properties, which different languages can exhibit on the basis of different regulations. One variation of this sort is the particular role of Reflexives in German, which can show up as improper Arguments, which are subject to standard syntactic and morphological conditions, but do not represent an argument of the head they belong to. Hence the particular property is the effect of syntactic, morphological and semantic conditions. A simple illustration of the phenomena I will explore in this contribution is based on the following observation.
Thematic Roles (or Theta-Roles) are theoretical constructs that account for a variety of well known empirical facts, which are more or less clearly delimited. In other words, Theta-Roles are not directly observable, but they do have empirical content that is open to empirical observation. The objective of the present paper is to sketch the nature and content of Theta-Roles, distinguishing their universal foundation as part of the language faculty, their language particular realization, which depends on the conditions of individual languages, and idiosyncratic properties, determined by specific information of individual lexical items.
Objektrelativsätze mit haben
(2006)
Objektrelativsätze mit dem Vollverb haben sind im gesprochenen Deutsch vergleichsweise häufig. Sie treten als einfache Objekt-Subjekt-Verb-Strukturen auf, z.B. die ich habe, und auch erweitert durch Modalisierungen und/oder Adverbialphrasen etc., z.B. wie in die ick uff de GRUNDschule schon hatte. Um die Differenzen, die sich zwischen den Verwendungen erkennen lassen, zu erfassen, kann eine standardgrammatische Beschreibung allenfalls als Ausgangsbasis dienen. Ein konstruktionsgrammatisches Vorgehen hingegen, bei dem alle linguistischen Ebenen der Sprachbeschreibung berücksichtigt werden, zeigt die Bandbreite von haben-Relativkonstruktionen auf. In Zusammenhang mit den Matrixstrukturen und unter Berücksichtigung der Diskurspragmatik (informationsstrukturelle und konversationelle Dimensionen) lassen sich vier verschiedene Konstruktionen mit haben-Relativsätzen konturieren: eine Präsentativkonstruktion, eine Topikkonstruktion, eine cleftartige Konstruktion und eine Konstruktion mit identifizierenden haben-Relativsätzen.
In this paper we compare the behaviour of adverbs of frequency (de Swart 1993) like usually with the behaviour of adverbs of quantity like for the most part in sentences that contain plural definites. We show that sentences containing the former type of Q-adverb evidence that Quantificational Variability Effects (Berman 1991) come about as an indirect effect of quantification over situations: in order for quantificational variability readings to arise, these sentences have to obey two newly observed constraints that clearly set them apart from sentences containing corresponding quantificational DPs, and that can plausibly be explained under the assumption that quantification over (the atomic parts of) complex situations is involved. Concerning sentences with the latter type of Q-adverb, on the other hand, such evidence is lacking: with respect to the constraints just mentioned, they behave like sentences that contain corresponding quantificational DPs. We take this as evidence that Q-adverbs like for the most part do not quantify over the atomic parts of sum eventualities in the cases under discussion (as claimed by Nakanishi and Romero (2004)), but rather over the atomic parts of the respective sum individuals.