410 Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (466)
- Part of a Book (286)
- Working Paper (120)
- Review (54)
- Conference Proceeding (33)
- Part of Periodical (20)
- Doctoral Thesis (18)
- Book (16)
- Periodical (4)
- Magister's Thesis (3)
Language
- English (630)
- German (328)
- Portuguese (24)
- Multiple languages (12)
- Croatian (11)
- Turkish (11)
- mis (4)
- French (3)
- Polish (1)
- Spanish (1)
Keywords
- Deutsch (108)
- Spracherwerb (62)
- Linguistik (52)
- Semantik (52)
- Syntax (49)
- Sprachtypologie (45)
- Kontrastive Linguistik (33)
- Sprachtest (33)
- Japanisch (32)
- Englisch (30)
Institute
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) Mannheim (52)
- Extern (40)
- Neuere Philologien (39)
- Sprachwissenschaften (5)
- Präsidium (3)
- Medizin (2)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (2)
- Universitätsbibliothek (2)
- Erziehungswissenschaften (1)
- Geschichtswissenschaften (1)
- Informatik (1)
- Psychologie und Sportwissenschaften (1)
Introduction
(2014)
Bantu languages have been at the heart of the research on the interaction between syntax, prosody and information structure. In these predominantly SVO languages, considerable attention has been devoted to postverbal phenomena. By addressing issues related to Subjects, Topics and Object-Verb word orders, the goal of the present papers is to deepen our understanding of the interaction of different grammatical components (syntax, phonology, semantics/pragmatics) both in individual languages and across the Bantu family. Each paper makes a valuable contribution to ongoing discussions on the preverbal domain.
The papers in this volume take up some aspects of the preverbal domain(s) in Bantu languages. They were originally presented at the Workshop BantuSynPhonIS: Preverbal Domain(s), held at the Center for General Linguistics (ZAS), in Berlin, on 14-15 November 2014. This workshop was coorganized by ZAS (Fatima Hamlaoui & Tonjes Veenstra) and the Humboldt University (Tom Güldemann, Yukiko Morimoto and Ines Fiedler).
The article focuses on the current state of research in simultaneous interpreting (SI), comparing cognitive pragmatic models with cognitive linguistic approaches. The author offers an objective list of the advantages and disadvantages of the cognitive linguistic approach and other models currently used in SI. The aim of the article is not to present a one-sidedly positive assessment of the cognitive linguistic approach, but instead to arrive at a balanced evaluation of the individual approaches and the possibilities offered by the models under investigation. The author also points out further approaches that could be characterized as covertly cognitive.
The 'Russian language proficiency test for multilingual children' is a linguistically and psycholinguistically-grounded test for L1-Russian bilingual children of pre-school and elementary school age. It allows the evaluation of language proficiency in Russian for scientific, therapeutic, and pedagogical purposes. The test is based on preliminary norms: data of 167 German-Russian bilingual children between the ages of 3 years and 6 years 11 months were evaluated.
Bilingual children's proficiency is examined in the following language domains:
- productive and receptive lexicon for verbs and nouns
- production of morphological marking on verbs (first and second-person singular present verbal inflection) and nouns (accusative and dative case singular)
- comprehension of grammatical constructions on the sentence level
The test should be administered by a competent – ideally native – speaker of Russian, and takes approximately 60 minutes to administer.
In addition to the test itself, the 'Russian language proficiency test for multilingual children' contains a questionnaire for gathering detailed information on the input situation as well as the child's previous linguistic and extra-linguistic development. The questionnaire is written in English and Russian and is intended to be filled out by the parents.
'Sprachstandstest Russisch für mehrsprachige Kinder' ist ein linguistisch und psycholinguistisch fundiertes Sprachstandsscreening für bilingual russisch-deutsche Kinder im Vorschul- und Frühschulalter. Es ermöglicht die Einschätzung des Sprachstands im Russischen, auf der Basis vorläufiger Normen, zu wissenschaftlichen, therapeutischen und pädagogischen Zwecken.
Der Test sollte von kompetenten, im Idealfall muttersprachlichen Sprechern des Russischen durchgeführt werden. Die Durchführungsdauer beträgt ca. 60 Minuten.
'Sprachstandstest Russisch' überprüft die Fähigkeiten bilingualer Kinder im Russischen in folgenden Bereichen:
- produktives und rezeptives Lexikon für Verben und Nomen
- Produktion morphologischer Markierungen an Verben (Verbflexion 1. und 2. Person Singular Präsens) und Nomen (Kasus Akkusativ und Dativ Singular)
- Verständnis grammatischer Strukturen auf Satzebene
Zur Interpretation der Testergebnisse werden vorläufige bilinguale Normdaten zur Verfügung gestellt. Sie basieren auf einer Stichprobe von insgesamt 167 deutsch-russisch aufwachsenden Kindern von drei bis sechs Jahren.
Zusätzlich zum Test zur Feststellung der sprachlichen Kompetenzen enthält 'Sprachstandstest Russisch' einen Fragebogen, der die detaillierte Inputsituation sowie die bisherige sprachliche und nichtsprachliche Entwicklung des Kindes erfasst. Der Fragebogen ist russisch-deutsch verfasst und wird von den Eltern durch Ankreuzen ausgefüllt.
Papers on pragmasemantics
(2009)
Optimality theory as used in linguistics (Prince & Smolensky, 1993/2004; Smolensky & Legendre, 2006) and cognitive psychology (Gigerenzer & Selten, 2001) is a theoretical framework that aims to integrate constraint based knowledge representation systems, generative grammar, cognitive skills, and aspects of neural network processing. In the last years considerable progress was made to overcome the artificial separation between the disciplines of linguistic on the one hand which are mainly concerned with the description of natural language competences and the psychological disciplines on the other hand which are interested in real language performance.
The semantics and pragmatics of natural language is a research topic that is asking for an integration of philosophical, linguistic, psycholinguistic aspects, including its neural underpinning. Especially recent work on experimental pragmatics (e.g. Noveck & Sperber, 2005; Garrett & Harnish, 2007) has shown that real progress in the area of pragmatics isn’t possible without using data from all available domains including data from language acquisition and actual language generation and comprehension performance. It is a conceivable research programme to use the optimality theoretic framework in order to realize the integration.
Game theoretic pragmatics is a relatively young development in pragmatics. The idea to view communication as a strategic interaction between speaker and hearer is not new. It is already present in Grice' (1975) classical paper on conversational implicatures. What game theory offers is a mathematical framework in which strategic interaction can be precisely described. It is a leading paradigm in economics as witnessed by a series of Nobel prizes in the field. It is also of growing importance to other disciplines of the social sciences. In linguistics, its main applications have been so far pragmatics and theoretical typology. For pragmatics, game theory promises a firm foundation, and a rigor which hopefully will allow studying pragmatic phenomena with the same precision as that achieved in formal semantics.
The development of game theoretic pragmatics is closely connected to the development of bidirectional optimality theory (Blutner, 2000). It can be easily seen that the game theoretic notion of a Nash equilibrium and the optimality theoretic notion of a strongly optimal form-meaning pair are closely related to each other. The main impulse that bidirectional optimality theory gave to research on game theoretic pragmatics stemmed from serious empirical problems that resulted from interpreting the principle of weak optimality as a synchronic interpretation principle.
In this volume, we have collected papers that are concerned with several aspects of game and optimality theoretic approaches to pragmatics.
Die vorliegende Arbeit widmet sich der phonetischen Motivation phonologischer Palatalisierungsprozesse, bei welchen Vorderzungenvokoide die Palatalisierung (bzw. Affrizierung) vorangehender Plosive bewirken. Durch akustische Analysen zu deutschen und bulgarischen stimmlosen alveolaren und velaren Verschlußlauten wird der Einfluß nachfolgender vorderer Vokoide und des tiefen Vokals /a/ auf die geräuschähnliche Phase nach der plosiven Verschlußlösung der Konsonanten untersucht. Zum Zwecke der Überprüfung einer nach universellen phonologischen Prinzipien formulierten Hierarchie der wahrscheinlichen Inputkandidaten für Palatalisierungen werden akustische Messungen zur Zeitdauer und zu den spektralen Eigenschaften des konsonantischen Segments in wortinitialen Konsonant-Vokoid-Sequenzen vorgestellt. Die Ergebnisse der Studie unterstützen nur teilweise die vorgeschlagene Hierarchiehypothese und zeigen, daß sprachspezifische Besonderheiten einen Einfluß auf die Anordnung der Elemente der Hierarchie ausüben.
Low- dimensional and speaker-independent linear vocal tract parametrizations can be obtained using the 3-mode PARAFAC factor analysis procedure first introduced by Harshman et al. (1977) and discussed in a series of subsequent papers in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (Jackson (1988), Nix et al. (1996), Hoole (1999), Zheng et al. (2003)). Nevertheless, some questions of importance have been left unanswered, e.g. none of the papers using this method has provided a consistent interpretation of the terms usually referred to as "speaker weights". This study attempts an exploration of what influences their reliability as a first step towards their consistent interpretation. With this in mind, we undertook a systematic comparison of the classical PARAFAC1 algorithm with a relaxed version, of it, PARAFAC2. This comparison was carried out on two different corpora acquired by the articulograph, which varied in vowel qualities, consonantal contexts, and the paralinguistic features accent and speech rate. The difference between these statistical approaches can grossly be described as follows: In PARAFAC1, observation units pertain to the same set of variables and the observation units are comparable. In PARAFAC2, observations pertain to the same set of variables, but observation units are not comparable. Such a situation can be easily conceived in a situation such as we are describing: The operationalization we took relies on the comparability of fleshpoint data acquired from different speakers, which need not be a good assumption due to influences like sensor placement and morphological conditions.
In particular, the comparison between the two different approaches is carried out by means of so-called "leverages" on different component matrices originating in regression analysis, calculated as v = diag(A(A A)−1A ) and delivering information on how "influential" a particular loading matrix is for the model. This analysis could potentially be carried out component by component, but we confined ourselves to effects on the global factor structure. For vowels, the most influential loadings are those for the tense cognates of non-palatal vowels. For speakers, the most prominent result is the relative absence of effects of the paralinguistic variables. Results generally indicate that there is quite little influence of the model specification (i.e. PARAFAC1 or PARAFAC2) on vowel and subject components. The patterns for the articulators indicate that there are strong differences between speakers with respect to the most influential measurement as revealed by PARAFAC2: In particular, the most influential y-contribution is the tongue-back for some talkers and the tongue-dorsum for other speakers. With respect to the speaker weights, again, the leverage patterns are very similar for both PARAFAC-versions. These patterns converge with the results of the loading plots, where the articulator profiles seem to be most altered by the use of PARAFAC2. These findings, in general, are interpreted as evidence for the reliability of the PARAFAC1 speaker weights.