400 Sprache
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (45) (remove)
Language
- German (25)
- English (18)
- Multiple languages (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (45)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (45)
Keywords
- Semantik (5)
- Spracherwerb (5)
- Syntax (5)
- Deutsch (4)
- Argumentationstheorie (3)
- Internetsprache (3)
- Phonologie (3)
- Computerlinguistik (2)
- Deskriptivität (2)
- Diskursanalyse (2)
Institute
- Extern (13)
- Neuere Philologien (1)
Unquestionably (or: undoubtedly), every competent speaker has already come to doubt with respect to the question of which form is correct or appropriate and should be used (in the standard language) when faced with two or more almost identical competing variants of words, word forms or sentence and phrase structure (e.g. German "Pizzas/Pizzen/Pizze" 'pizzas', Dutch "de drie mooiste/mooiste drie stranden" 'the three most beautiful/most beautiful three beaches', Swedish "större än jag/mig" 'taller than I/me'). Such linguistic uncertainties or "cases of doubt" (cf. i.a. Klein 2003, 2009, 2018; Müller & Szczepaniak 2017; Schmitt, Szczepaniak & Vieregge 2019; Stark 2019 as well as the useful collections of data of Duden vol. 9, Taaladvies.net, Språkriktighetsboken etc.) systematically occur also in native speakers and they do not necessarily coincide with the difficulties of second language learners. In present-day German, most grammatical uncertainties occur in the domains of inflection (nominal plural formation, genitive singular allomorphy of strong masc./neut. nouns, inflectional variation of weak masc. nouns, strong/weak adjectival inflection and comparison forms, strong/weak verb forms, perfect auxiliary selection) and word-formation (linking elements in compounds, separability of complex verbs). As for syntax, there are often doubts in connection with case choice (pseudo-partitive constructions, prepositional case government) and agreement (especially due to coordination or appositional structures). This contribution aims to present a contrastive approach to morphological and syntactic uncertainties in contemporary Germanic languages (mostly German, Dutch, and Swedish) in order to obtain a broader and more fine-grained typology of grammatical instabilities and their causes. As will be discussed, most doubts of competent speakers - a problem also for general linguistic theory - can be attributed to processes of language change in progress, to language or variety contact, to gaps and rule conflicts in the grammar of every language or to psycholinguistic conditions of language processing. Our main concerns will be the issues of which (kinds of) common or different critical areas there are within Germanic (and, on the other hand, in which areas there are no doubts), which of the established (cross-linguistically valid) explanatory approaches apply to which phenomena and, ultimately, the question whether the new data reveals further lines of explanation for the empirically observable (standard) variation.
Ziel dieses Beitrags ist der Vergleich von Formen und Diskursfunktionen der nominalen Anredeformen in verschiedenen Fernsehwahldebatten aus Brasilien, Portugal, Deutschland, Frankreich und Spanien.
Die sprachvergleichende Perspektive ist aus mehreren Gründen von besonderem Interesse. Zum einen liegt ein sprachstruktureller Unterschied zwischen dem Portugiesischen und den anderen Sprachen vor, der darin besteht, dass das Portugiesische eine große Zahl nominaler Anredeformen in sein Pronominalparadigma integrieren kann, wohingegen es diese Möglichkeit im Deutschen, Spanischen und Französischen nicht oder nur sehr begrenzt gibt.
Ein anderer Unterschied ist, dass es im Portugiesischen einen gewissen Spielraum dafür gibt, die interlokutive Distanz in der Interaktion durch Anredeformen auszuhandeln, was sich auch in den Wahldebatten zeigt. In den anderen drei Sprachen besteht diese Möglichkeit nur sehr eingeschränkt.
In allen fünf Debatten stehen die Anredeformen jedoch in engem Zusammenhang mit Fragen, wie z.B. der, wie Respekt oder Professionalität gezeigt wird, wodurch somit ein gewisser Zusammenhang zwischen der Wahl der Anredeformen und dem diskursiven Ethos manifest wird. Die Wahl der Anredeformen kann als strategisch betrachtet werden, wie auch der Wechsel von der Anrede zur delocutio in praesentia (Rede über den Gesprächspartner in seiner Gegenwart). Doch trotz dieser Parallelen zeigen sich deutliche Unterschiede in der Ausgestaltung, die die Frage nach interkulturellen Differenzen aufwerfen.
The Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN) is a theoretically grounded toolkit that employs parallel pictorial stimuli to explore and assess narrative skills in children in many different languages. It is part of the LITMUS (Language Impairment Testing in Multilingual Settings) battery of tests that were developed in connection with the COST Action IS0804 Language Impairment in a Multilingual Society: Linguistic Patterns and the Road to Assessment (2009−2013). MAIN has been designed to assess both narrative production and comprehension in children who acquire one or more languages from birth or from early age. Its design allows for the comparable assessment of narrative skills in several languages in the same child and in different elicitation modes: Telling, Retelling and Model Story. MAIN contains four parallel stories, each with a carefully designed six-picture sequence based on a theoretical model of multidimensional story organization. The stories are controlled for cognitive and linguistic complexity, parallelism in macrostructure and microstructure, as well as for cultural appropriateness and robustness. As a tool MAIN had been used to compare children’s narrative skills across languages, and also to help differentiate between children with and without developmental language disorders, both monolinguals and bilinguals.
This volume consists of two parts. The main content of Part I consists of 33 papers describing the process of adapting and translating MAIN to a large number of languages from different parts of the world. Part II contains materials for use for about 80 languages, including pictorial stimuli, which are accessible after registration.
MAIN was first published in 2012/2013 (ZASPiL 56). Several years of theory development and material construction preceded this launch. In 2019 (ZASPiL 63), the revised English version (revised on the basis of over 2,500 transcribed MAIN narratives as well as ca 24,000 responses to MAIN comprehension questions, collected from around 700 monolingual and bilingual children in Germany, Russia and Sweden between 2013-2019) was published together with revised versions in German, Russian, Swedish, and Turkish for the bilingual Turkish-Swedish population in Sweden. The present 2020 (ZASPiL 64) volume contains new and revised language versions of MAIN.
The Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN) is part of LITMUS (Language Impairment Testing in Multilingual Settings). LITMUS is a battery of tests that have been developed in connection with the COST Action IS0804 Language Impairment in a Multilingual Society: Linguistic Patterns and the Road to Assessment (2009−2013).
In these volumes, we are very pleased to present a collection of papers based on talks and posters at Sinn und Bedeutung 22, which took place in Berlin and Potsdam on September 7-10, 2017, jointly organized by the Leibniz-Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS) and the University of Potsdam.
SuB22 received 183 submitted abstracts. Out of these, the organizing committee selected 39 oral presentations in the main session, 4 oral presentations in the special session ‘Semantics and Natural Logic’, and 24 poster presentations. There were an additional 6 invited talks. In total, 58 of these contributions appear in paper form in the present volumes.
In these volumes, we are very pleased to present a collection of papers based on talks and posters at Sinn und Bedeutung 22, which took place in Berlin and Potsdam on September 7-10, 2017, jointly organized by the Leibniz-Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS) and the University of Potsdam.
SuB22 received 183 submitted abstracts. Out of these, the organizing committee selected 39 oral presentations in the main session, 4 oral presentations in the special session ‘Semantics and Natural Logic’, and 24 poster presentations. There were an additional 6 invited talks. In total, 58 of these contributions appear in paper form in the present volumes.
updated version --
The Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN) was designed in order to assess narrative skills in children who acquire one or more languages from birth or from early age. MAIN is suitable for children from 3 to 10 years and evaluates both comprehension and production of narratives. Its design allows for the assessment of several languages in the same child, as well as for different elicitation modes: Model Story, Retelling, and Telling. MAIN contains four parallel stories, each with a carefully designed six-picture sequence. The stories are controlled for cognitive and linguistic complexity, parallelism in macrostructure and microstructure, as well as for cultural appropriateness and robustness. The instrument has been developed on the basis of extensive piloting with more than 550 monolingual and bilingual children aged 3 to 10, for 15 different languages and language combinations. Even though MAIN has not been norm-referenced yet, its standardized procedures can be used for evaluation, intervention and research purposes. MAIN is currently available in the following languages: English, Afrikaans, Albanian, Basque, Bulgarian, Croatian, Cypriot Greek, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Icelandic, Italian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Polish, Russian, Spanish, Standard Arabic, Swedish, Turkish, Vietnamese, and Welsh.
Im Mittelpunkt Deutsch
(2018)
The Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN) was designed in order to assess narrative skills in children who acquire one or more languages from birth or from early age. MAIN is suitable for children from 3 to 10 years and evaluates both comprehension and production of narratives. Its design allows for the assessment of several languages in the same child, as well as for different elicitation modes: Model Story, Retelling, and Telling. MAIN contains four parallel stories, each with a carefully designed six-picture sequence. The stories are controlled for cognitive and linguistic complexity, parallelism in macrostructure and microstructure, as well as for cultural appropriateness and robustness. The instrument has been developed on the basis of extensive piloting with more than 550 monolingual and bilingual children aged 3 to 10, for 15 different languages and language combinations. Even though MAIN has not been norm-referenced yet, its standardized procedures can be used for evaluation, intervention and research purposes. MAIN is currently available in the following languages: English, Afrikaans, Albanian, Basque, Bulgarian, Croatian, Cypriot Greek, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Icelandic, Italian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Polish, Russian, Spanish, Standard Arabic, Swedish, Turkish, Vietnamese, and Welsh.
The early acquisition of Greek compounds by two monolingual Greek girls aged between 1;8 and 3;0 years is studied in a usage-based theoretical framework. Special importance is attached to the morphological structure of Greek compound types occurring in child speech and child-directed speech. Greek nominal compound formation does not consist in the mere juxtaposition of words or roots, but involves stems as well as a compound marker. Major questions addressed are the transparency of compounds and productive nominal compound formation. Evidence for productivity of nominal compound formation has been found with only one of the two girls. In contrast to other languages, neoclassical nominal compounds by far exceed endocentric subordinative ones tokenwise in Greek child speech and child-directed speech providing evidence of entrenchment rather than productivity.
In a cross-linguistic comparison it is shown that, in spite of the fact that both Standard Modern Greek and German are rich in nominal compounds, their number is much more limited in Greek than in German child speech. An explanation for this apparent paradox is provided by an onomasiological approach to lexical typology based on a sample list of nominal compounds occurring in German child language and their Greek translational equivalents. It has been found that while use of nominal compounds is common in colloquial German including child-centered situations, it is more typical of Greek formal than colloquial registers.