410 Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (322)
- 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 (486)
- German (328)
- Portuguese (24)
- Multiple languages (12)
- Croatian (11)
- Turkish (11)
- mis (4)
- French (3)
- Polish (1)
- Spanish (1)
Keywords
- Deutsch (108)
- Spracherwerb (62)
- Semantik (52)
- Linguistik (51)
- Syntax (49)
- Sprachtypologie (45)
- Kontrastive Linguistik (33)
- Sprachtest (33)
- Englisch (30)
- Computerlinguistik (27)
Institute
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) Mannheim (52)
- Extern (40)
- Neuere Philologien (38)
- Sprachwissenschaften (5)
- Präsidium (3)
- Medizin (2)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (2)
- Universitätsbibliothek (2)
- Erziehungswissenschaften (1)
- Geschichtswissenschaften (1)
The aim of any Automatic Translation project is to give a mechanical procedure for finding an equivalent expression in the target language to any sentence in the source language. The aim of my linguistic translation project is to find the corresponding structures of the languages dealt with. The two main problems that have to be solved by such a project are the difference of word order between the source language and the target language and the ambiguous words of the source language for which the appropriate word in the target language has to be chosen. The first problem is of major linguistic interest: once the project has been worked out, it will give us the parallel sentence structures for the two languages in question. Since there is no complete analysis of any language that could be used for the purpose of automatic translation, we decided to build up our project sentence by sentence. The rules which are needed for translating each sentence will have to be included in the complete program anyway, and the translation may be checked and corrected immediately. The program is split up into subroutines for each word-class, so that a correction of the program in case of an unsatisfactory translation does not complicate the program unnecessarily.
Den Unterschied zwischen Satz- und Satzgliednegation (auch Wortverneinung genannt) kann man erst befriedigend erklären, wenn die Auswirkungen der Emphase berücksichtigt werden, die sowohl in positiven als auch in negativen Sätzen zum Vorschein kommen. Ich werde die se Annahme mit Beispielsätzen zu illustrieren und zu rechtfertigen versuchen, ohne eine Formalisierung anzustreben.
Bei der Untersuchung der bulgarischen Geschmacksadjektive werden wir versuchen, ihre distinktiven Merkmale festzustellen, die die systematischen Beziehungen zwischen den betrachteten Spracheinheiten charakterisieren. Wie bekannt, unterscheidet MELČUK zwischen äußeren und inneren distinktiven Merkmalen. Die äußeren Merkmale drücken die syntagmatischen Beziehungen der Sprachelemente aus; auf der lexikalischen Ebene z.B. müssen sie die Kombinierbarkeit – im konstruktiven Sinne – der Worte im Syntagma erklären: d.h., welche konkreten Verbindungen kann man konstruieren, abgesehen von ihrer Akzeptierbarkeit, wenn der Sinn als äußeres distinktives Merkmal ("semantischer Parameter") angegeben ist. Da diese Merkmale sehr allgemein sein müssen (im Unterschied zu den individuellen semantischen Parametern, die in wenigen Verbindungen vorkommen), ist es klar, daß nicht alle semantischen Merkmale; die ein begrenztes Gebiet. wie das der Geschmacksadjektive charakterisieren, als semantische Parameter dienen können, sondern nur das allgemeinste Merkmal. [...] Mit dem Ziel, eine semantische Interpretation der generierten Sätze zu ermöglichen, werden wir versuchen, die semantischen Merkmale in der normalen Form der lexikalischen Eintragung (nach Katz/Fodor) darzustellen, was auch die Möglichkeit gibt, einige semantische Verhältnisse der Sätze, die Geschmacksadjektive enthalten, zu erklären. Da das Ziel hier die Feststellung der für die semantische Interpretation notwendigen Merkmale ist, werden wir nicht alle Bedeutungen der Geschmacksadjektive suchen; außer Betracht bleibt auch ihr übertragener Gebrauch, weil sie dann eigentlich keine echten Geschmacksadjektive mehr sind.
Different languages employ different morphosyntactic devices for expressing genericity. And, of course, they also make use of different morphosyntactic and semantic or pragmatic cues which may contribute to the interpretation of a sentence as generic rather than episodic. [...] We will advance the strong hypo thesis that it is a fundamental property of lexical elements in natural language that they are neutral with respect to different modes of reference or non-reference. That is, we reject the idea that a certain use of a lexical element, e.g. a use which allows reference to particular spatio-temporally bounded objects in the world, should be linguistically prior to all other possible uses, e.g. to generic and non-specific uses. From this it follows that we do not consider generic uses as derived from non-generic uses as it is occasionally assumed in the literature. Rather, we regard these two possibilities of use as equivalent alternative uses of lexical elements. The typological differences to be noted therefore concern the formal and semantic relationship of generic and non-generic uses to each other; they do not pertain to the question of whether lexical elements are predetermined for one of these two uses. Even supposing we found a language where generic uses are always zero-marked and identical to lexical sterns, we would still not assume that lexical elements in this language primarily have a generic use from which the non-generic uses are derived. (Incidentally, none of the languages examined, not even Vietnamese, meets this criterion.)
In the present monograph, we will deal with questions of lexical typology in the nominal domain. By the term "lexical typology in the nominal domain", we refer to crosslinguistic regularities in the interaction between (a) those areas of the lexicon whose elements are capable of being used in the construction of "referring phrases" or "terms" and (b) the grammatical patterns in which these elements are involved. In the traditional analyses of a language such as English, such phrases are called "nominal phrases". In the study of the lexical aspects of the relevant domain, however, we will not confine ourselves to the investigation of "nouns" and "pronouns" but intend to take into consideration all those parts of speech which systematically alternate with nouns, either as heads or as modifiers of nominal phrases. In particular, this holds true for adjectives both in English and in other Standard European Languages. It is well known that adjectives are often difficult to distinguish from nouns, or that elements with an overt adjectival marker are used interchangeably with nouns, especially in particular semantic fields such as those denoting MATERIALS or NATlONALlTIES. That is, throughout this work the expression "lexical typology in the nominal domain" should not be interpreted as "a typology of nouns", but, rather, as the cross-linguistic investigation of lexical areas constitutive for "referring phrases" irrespective of how the parts-of-speech system in a specific language is defined.
Theticity
(1996)
The subject matter of this chapter is the semantic, syntactic and discoursepragmatic background as well as the cross-linguistic behavior of types of utterance exemplified by the following English sentences […]: (1) My NECK hurts. […] (2) The PHONE's ringing. [...] Sentences such as […] are usually held to stand in opposition to sentences with a topical subject. The difference is said to be formally marked, for example, by VS order vs. topical SV order (as in Albanian po bie telefoni 'the PHONE is ringing' vs. telefoni po bie 'the PHONE is RINGING'), or by accent on the subject only vs. accent on both the subject and the verb (as in the English translations). The term theticity will be used in the following to label the specific phenomenological domain to which the sentences in (1) and (2) belong. It has long been commonplace that these and similar expressions occur at particular points in the discourse where "a new situation is presented as a whole". We will try to depict and classify the various discourse situations in which these expressions have been found in the different languages, and we will try to trace out areas of cross-linguistic comparability. Finally, we will raise the question whether or not there is a common denominator which would justify a unified treatment of all these expressions in functional/semantic terms.
[I]n its present form, the bibliography contains approximately 1100 entries. Bibliographical work is never complete, and the present one is still modest in a number of respects. It is not annotated, and it still contains a lot of mistakes and inconsistencies. It has nevertheless reached a stage which justifies considering the possibility of making it available to the public. The first step towards this is its pre-publication in the form of this working paper. […]
The bibliography is less complete for earlier years. For works before 1970, the bibliographies of Firbas and Golkova 1975 and Tyl 1970 may be consulted, which have not been included here.
Die Durchführung kontrastiver Untersuchungen setzt vor allem eine gründliche Beschreibung der zu vergleichenden Sprachen auf der Grundlage eines Grammatikmodells voraus. Kontrastive Arbeiten zum Sprachenpaar Deutsch/Türkisch, die diese Bedingung erfüllen, finden sich nur selten. Das dürfte auf die nur bedingt vergleichbaren Strukturen der besagten Sprachen zurückzuführen sein. Zwar existiert die semantische Kategorie Reflexivum im Deutschen und im Türkischen. In vielen Fällen ist es jedoch nicht möglich, die Existenz eines syntaktischen und semantischen Reflexivums in den beiden Sprachen nachzuweisen. Im folgenden Beitrag soll der Versuch unternommen werden, dieses Problem anhand eines Vergleichs der reflexiven Konstruktionen im Deutschen und im Türkischen zu verdeutlichen.