Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (46)
- Part of a Book (44)
- Working Paper (13)
- Conference Proceeding (7)
- Review (5)
- Book (2)
- Preprint (1)
Language
- German (59)
- English (45)
- Portuguese (8)
- Croatian (3)
- mis (2)
- Multiple languages (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (118)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (118)
Keywords
- Deutsch (33)
- Pragmatik (32)
- Gefühl (11)
- Semantik (10)
- Topik (9)
- Diskursanalyse (8)
- Erzählen, pragm. (8)
- Syntax (7)
- Kommunikation (6)
- Linguistik (6)
Institute
In this paper we present a proposal to integrate pragmatic information, both from the preceding discourse and the extra-linguistic context, in the grammar. We provide an analysis of elliptical fragments according to how they are anchored to the context and the kind of resolution they require. We also present an alternative view about the syntax of fragments.
This paper discusses the nature of habits in the use of languages. It is well-known that the habits of one's first language can influence the acquisition of a second language. This paper discusses the less well-known phenomenon of how an acquired second language can influence one's first language, and explains this influence by reference to the nature of communicative behavior.
The purpose of this dissertation is to defend the idea that the empirical responsibilities of binding theory can be handled in a more psychologically and historically realistic way when assigned to the field of pragmatics. In particular, I wish to show that Optimality Theory (OT) (Prince & Smolensky, 1993), the stochastic OT and Gradual Learning Algorithm of Boersma (1998), the Recoverability of OT of Wilson (2001) and Buchwald et al. (2002), and the bidirectional OT of Blutner (2000b) and Bidirectional Gradual Learning Algorithm of Jäger (2003a) can all participate in a formal framework in which one can formally spell out and justify the idea that the distributional behavior of bound pronouns and reflexivs is a pragmatic phenomenon.
In unserem Beitrag gehen wir der Frage nach, wie Erwachsene neue Fähigkeiten und Fertigkeiten zum mündlichen Kommunizieren erwerben, d.h. aneignen. Ziel ist es, die beteiligten Prozesse für Analyse-, Beratungs- und Vermittlungszwecke zu systematisieren, um Antworten auf die folgenden Fragen zu finden: Welche Teilfähigkeiten werden zum mündlichen Kommunizieren überhaupt benötigt? Welche lassen sich leicht – welche nur schwer oder vielleicht gar nicht vermitteln bzw. aneignen? Welche Methoden eignen sich für die Vermittlung welcher Fähigkeiten? Ausgangspunkt unserer Überlegungen sind praktische Fragen des Kompetenzerwerbs, d.h. des Erwerbs der Fähigkeit, angemessen mündlich kommunizieren zu können. Wir gehen davon aus, dass es sich hierbei um eine spezifische Kompetenz handelt, die sich von anderen Kompetenzen unterscheidet (vgl. Fiehler/ Schmitt i.d.Bd.). Ihre Besonderheit liegt in den spezifischen Bedingungen der mündlichen Kommunikation begründet: Gespräche und Diskurse sind immer das Resultat aller daran Beteiligter, so dass die Anteile und beteiligten Kompetenzen des Einzelnen weniger offensichtlich sind als bei individuellen Tätigkeiten. Mündliche Kommunikation ist durch ihre Flüchtigkeit, Prozesshaftigkeit, Interaktivität und Musterhaftigkeit gekennzeichnet (vgl. Deppermann i.d.Bd., Abschn. 3). Die Bewältigung mündlicher Kommunikation erfordert ein spezifisches Ensemble von Wissen und Fertigkeiten, die sich zusammenfassend als Gesprächskompetenz beschreiben lassen. Auch wenn wir uns in diesem Beitrag auf die Gesprächskompetenz konzentrieren, sind wir nicht der Auffassung, dass der faktische Gesprächsverlauf ausschließlich eine Funktion dieser Kompetenz ist. Vielmehr spielen andere Faktoren wie Emotionen und Affekte, Beziehungs- und Rollenfragen ebenfalls eine Rolle.
On the syntax and pragmatics interface : Left-peripheral, medial and right-peripheral focus in greek
(2004)
The present paper explores the extent to which narrow syntax is responsible for the computation of discourse functions such as focus/topic. More specifically, it challenges the claim that language approximates ‘perfection’ with respect to economy, conceptual necessity and optimality in design by reconsidering the roles and interactions of the different modules of the grammar, in particular of syntax and phonology and the mapping between the two, in the representation of pragmatic notions. Empirical and theoretical considerations strongly indicate that narrow syntax is ‘blind’ to properties and operations involving the interpretive components — that is, PF and LF. As a result, syntax-phonology interface rules do not ‘see’ everything in the levels they connect. In essence, the architecture of grammar proposed here from the perspective of focus marking necessitates the autonomy of the different levels of grammar, presupposing that NS is minimally structured only when liberated from any non-syntactic/discourse implementations, i.e., movement operations to satisfy both interface needs. As a result, the model articulated here totally dispenses with discourse projections, i.e. FocusP.
This article analyses the German discourse particle wohl 'I suppose', 'presumably' as a syntactic and semantic modifier of the sentence types declarative and interrogative. It is shown that wohl does not contribute to the propositional, i.e. descriptive content of an utterance. Nor does it trigger an implicature. The proposed analysis captures the semantic behaviour of wohl by assuming that it moves to SpecForceP at LF, from where it can modify the sentence type operators in Force0 in compositional fashion. Semantically, a modification with wohl results in a weaker commitment to the proposition expressed in declaratives and in a request for a weaker commitment concerning the questioned proposition in interrogatives. Cross-linguistic evidence for a left-peripheral position of wohl (at LF) comes from languages in which the counterpart of wohl occurs in the clausal periphery overtly. Overall, the analysis sheds more light on the semantic properties of the left periphery, in particular of the functional projection ForceP.
This paper deals with metaphorical transference of technical concepts to our everyday way of speaking. At the focus of the investigation there will be the question why one finds specifically in German, in comparison with Portuguese, for instance, frequently, tecnological metaphors related to other metaphorical concepts. On the basis of some examples extracted from the comparative survey "Brasilianische und deutsche Wirklichkeiten – eine vergleichende Fallstudie zu kommunikativ erzeugten Sinnwelten " [Brazilian and German realities – a comparative case study of communicatively created universes of meanings], we will discuss what traces of the German language and of historical-cultural development of the German nation contribute to such dynamics of everyday metaphors.
The German word also, similar to English so, is traditionally considered to be a sentence adverb with a consecutive meaning, i.e. it indicates that the propositional content of the clause containing it is some kind of consequence of what has previously been said. As a sentence adverb, also has its place within the core of the German sentence, since this is the proper place for an adverb to occur in German. The sentence core offers two proper positions for adverbs: the so-called front field and the middle field. In spoken German, however, also often occurs in sentence-initial position, outside the sentence itself. In this paper, I will use excerpts of German conversations to discuss and illustrate the importance of the sentence positions and the discourse positions for the functions of also on the basis of some German conversations.
Speakers have a wide range of noncanonical syntactic options that allow them to mark the information status of the various elements within a proposition. The correlation between a construction and constraints on information status, however, is not arbitrary; there are broad, consistent, and predictive generalizations that can be made about the information-packaging functions served by preposing, postposing, and argument-reversing constructions. Specifically, preposed constituents are constrained to represent discourse-old information, postposed constituents are constrained to represent information that is either discourse-new or hearer-new, and argument-reversing constructions require that the information represented by the preposed constituent be at least as familiar as that represented by the postposed constituent (Birner & Ward 1998). The status of inferable information (Clark 1977; Prince 1981), however, is problematic; a study of corpus data shows that such information can be preposed in an inversion or a preposing (hence must be discourse-old), yet can also be postposed in constructions requiring hearer-new information (hence must be hearer-new). This information status – discourse-old yet hearer-new – is assumed by Prince (1992) to be non-occurring on the grounds that what has been evoked in the discourse should be known to the hearer. I resolve this difficulty by arguing for a reinterpretation of the term 'discourse-old' as applying not only to information that has been explicitly evoked in the prior discourse, but rather to any information that provides a salient inferential link to the prior discourse. Extending Prince’s notion in this manner allows us to account for the distribution of noncanonically positioned peripheral constituents in a principled and unified way.