Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (37)
- 2021 (36)
- 2020 (35)
- 2019 (31)
- 2017 (25)
- 2012 (11)
- 2016 (11)
- 2002 (9)
- 2015 (6)
- 2013 (5)
- 2014 (5)
- 2004 (4)
- 2008 (4)
- 2022 (4)
- 1999 (3)
- 2005 (3)
- 2006 (3)
- 2007 (3)
- 2011 (3)
- 2024 (3)
- 1989 (2)
- 1992 (2)
- 2001 (2)
- 2009 (2)
- 1973 (1)
- 1980 (1)
- 1981 (1)
- 1982 (1)
- 1984 (1)
- 1986 (1)
- 1987 (1)
- 1993 (1)
- 1994 (1)
- 1995 (1)
- 1997 (1)
- 2000 (1)
- 2010 (1)
Document Type
- Article (262) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (262)
Keywords
- German (6)
- European Portuguese (5)
- Kuba (3)
- Speech (3)
- heritage speakers (3)
- Klassifikation (2)
- L2 (2)
- Oqaluttuaq (2)
- Phonology (2)
- Sprache (2)
Institute
- Neuere Philologien (262) (remove)
Als Peter Härtling am 7.11.2014 mit dem Hessischen Kulturpreis ausgezeichnet wird, spielt er auf die reformpädagogischen "fromme[n] Wünsche" an, die mit dem von Ellen Key 1902 ausgerufenen "Jahrhundert des Kindes" für das 20. Jahrhundert postuliert worden waren, und die, wie er selbst als Kind während und nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg erfahren musste, "unerfüllbar" gewesen seien. Sein Rückblick lässt ihn allerdings zu dem Schluss kommen, dass das 21. Jahrhundert noch "schlimmer" sei, denn es handele sich um das "Jahrhundert des Flüchtlingskindes". Es liegt folglich nahe, angesichts seines im Herbst 2016 erschienenen "Romans für Kinder", Djadi, Flüchtlingsjunge, auf den erinnernden Autor zu blicken, der mit 13 Jahren kurz nach Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs zum Waisen wurde. ...
L'osservazione secondo la quale lo scarto come oggetto di ricerca sia allo stesso tempo un effetto della sua ricerca è ciò che l'articolo traccia in tre studi sulla spazzatura: Rubbish! di William Rathje e Cullen Murphy, Un mondo usa e getta di Guido Viale e Das Miill-System di Volker Grassmuck e Christian Unverzagt. Questi tre studi esemplificano tre modi di presentare lo scarto: esplorazione, problema e ricie/aggio. Guardarli come argomenti scientifici ci permette di discutere di ciò che è considerato scarto ponendo domande di presentazione testuale e, allo stesso tempo, di chiedere quali conseguenze abbia la presentazione per il concetto scientifico dello scarto.
This paper presents three acceptability experiments investigating German verb-final clauses in order to explore possible sources of sentence complexity during human parsing. The point of departure was De Vries et al.'s (2011) generalization that sentences with three or more crossed or nested dependencies are too complex for being processed by the human parsing mechanism without difficulties. This generalization is partially based on findings from Bach et al. (1986) concerning the acceptability of complex verb clusters in German and Dutch. The first experiment tests this generalization by comparing two sentence types: (i) sentences with three nested dependencies within a single clause that contains three verbs in a complex verb cluster; (ii) sentences with four nested dependencies distributed across two embedded clauses, one center-embedded within the other, each containing a two-verb cluster. The results show that sentences with four nested dependencies are judged as acceptable as control sentences with only two nested dependencies, whereas sentences with three nested dependencies are judged as only marginally acceptable. This argues against De Vries et al.'s (2011) claim that the human parser can process no more than two nested dependencies. The results are used to refine the Verb-Cluster Complexity Hypothesis of Bader and Schmid (2009a). The second and the third experiment investigate sentences with four nested dependencies in more detail in order to explore alternative sources of sentence complexity: the number of predicted heads to be held in working memory (storage cost in terms of the Dependency Locality Theory [DLT], Gibson, 2000) and the length of the involved dependencies (integration cost in terms of the DLT). Experiment 2 investigates sentences for which storage cost and integration cost make conflicting predictions. The results show that storage cost outweighs integration cost. Experiment 3 shows that increasing integration cost in sentences with two degrees of center embedding leads to decreased acceptability. Taken together, the results argue in favor of a multifactorial account of the limitations on center embedding in natural languages.
In German, the subject usually precedes the object (SO order), but, under certain discourse conditions, the object is allowed to precede the subject (OS order). This paper focuses on main clauses in which either the subject or a discourse-given object occurs in clause-initial position. Two acceptability experiments show that OS sentences with a given object are generally acceptable, but the precise degree of acceptability varies both with the object‘s referential form (demonstrative objects leading to higher acceptability than other types of objects) and with formal properties of the subject (pronominal subjects leading to higher acceptability than non-pronominal subjects). For SO sentences, acceptability was reduced when the object was a d-pronoun, which contrasts with the high acceptability of OS sentences with a d-pronoun object. This finding was explored in a third acceptability experiment comparing d-pronouns in subject and object function. This experiment provides evidence that a reduction in acceptability due to a prescriptive bias against d-pronouns is suspended when the d-pronoun occurs as object in the prefield. We discuss the experimental results with respect to theories of German clause structure that claim that OS sentences with different information-structural properties are derived by different types of movement.
Three experiments investigated the interpretation and production of pronouns in German. The first two experiments probed the preferred interpretation of a pronoun in contexts containing two potential antecedents by having participants complete a sentence fragment starting either with a personal pronoun or a d-pronoun. We systematically varied three properties of the potential antecedents: syntactic function, linear position, and topicality. The results confirm a subject preference for personal pronouns. The preferred interpretation of d-pronouns cannot be captured by any of the three factors alone. Although a d-pronoun preferentially refers to the non-topic in many cases, this preference can be overridden by the other two factors, linear position and syntactic function. In order to test whether interpretive preferences follow from production biases as proposed by the Bayesian theory of Kehler et al. (2008), a third experiment had participants freely produce a continuation sentence for the contexts of the first two experiments. The results show that personal pronouns are used more often to refer to a subject than to an object, recapitulating the subject preference found for interpretation and thereby confirming the account of Kehler et al. (2008). The interpretation results for the d-pronoun likewise follow from the corresponding production data.
Wer sich mit Kinderliteratur aus wissenschaftlicher Perspektive befasst, kommt nicht umhin, über age nachzudenken. Age spielt in seinen vielen Formen und Facetten im gesamten System Kinderliteratur eine entscheidende Rolle. In Fundamental Concepts of Children’s Literature Research beschreibt Hans-Heino Ewers den Beginn der Kinderliteratur als den Moment, in dem Kinder als die Adressaten eines Textes benannt werden (vgl. Ewers 2009, S. 10). Perry Nodelman geht in seinem Buch The Hidden Adult der Frage nach, warum Texte an Kinder adressiert werden und rückt Konstruktionen von Kindern als besonderer, literarischer Nachrichten bedürfend in den Fokus.
German free relative constructions allow for case requirement mismatches under two types of circumstances. The first is when the case required in the embedded clause is more complex (NOM < ACC < GEN < DAT) than the case required in the main clause, and the relative pronoun takes the form of the embedded clause case. The second type of circumstance is when the form that corresponds to the two required cases is syncretic. I propose an analysis that combines Caha’s (2009) case hierarchy in Nanosyntax with Van Riemsdijk’s (2006a) concept of Grafting. By placing case features as separate heads in the syntax, a less complex case can be Grafted into a different clause, explaining the first type of circumstance. The second type makes reference to the fact that syncretic forms are inserted via the same lexical entry (Superset Principle). A cross-linguistic comparison shows that it is language-specific whether a more complex case requirement in the main or embedded clause causes non-matching non-syncretic free relatives to be grammatical. For all languages it holds that the relative pronoun appears in the most complex case required, which provides additional evidence for case being complex and more complex cases being able to license less complex cases.
Lange Zeit herrschte im Forschungsdiskurs die Meinung vor, dass Kinder- und Jugendliteratur »aus sich selbst heraus verständlich sei und keiner literaturwissenschaftlichen Interpretationskunst bedürfe« (Gansel / Korte 2009, S. 7). Aus diesem Grund standen Fragen nach der Machart der Texte im Verhältnis zu Fragen nach ihren »Inhalte[n], Themen, pädagogische[n] Strategien und so genannte[n] ›Botschaften‹« (ebd.) häufig im Hintergrund. Diese Vorstellung hat sich mittlerweile jedoch gewandelt, was nicht zuletzt auf eine grundlegende Veränderung in der literarischen Landschaft seit Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts zurückzuführen ist...
Alles Fake, reine Konstruktion. Oder? : narrativierte Unsicherheit in Tamara Bachs "Marienbilder"
(2019)
Im Strukturalismus wird Literatur verstanden als ein sekundäres modellbildendes System (vgl. Titzmann 1977, S. 69). Sekundär bedeutet, dass Literatur ein neues zeichentheoretisches System konstituiert, in dem die Signifikate der normalsprachlichen Zeichen eine neue Bedeutung bekommen; der Text erschafft folglich das Modell einer Welt und entspricht demnach nicht nur nicht der Realität, sondern soll es auch erst gar nicht (vgl. ebd., S. 65– 85). Dieses erschaffene Modell einer Welt meint das, was im Folgenden als Konstruktion bezeichnet wird. Was geschieht jedoch, wenn nicht einmal auszumachen ist, ob dem, was in der erzählten Welt geschieht, ein diegetischer Wahrheitsgehalt zugesprochen werden kann oder nicht? Und wie wird diese Unsicherheit narrativ erzeugt? ...