Refine
Year of publication
- 2003 (86) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (86) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (86)
Keywords
- Morphologie (13)
- Aspekt (10)
- Phonologie (9)
- Deutsch (8)
- Kindersprache (7)
- Literatur (5)
- Optimalitätstheorie (4)
- Rezeption (4)
- Englisch (3)
- Qiang-Sprache (3)
Institute
This paper argues for a scopal explanation of the readings of the adverb wieder (‘again’). It is the syntactic entity that wieder is related to which determines whether the repetitive or the restitutive reading obtains. If it is adjoined to the minimal verbal domain, it relates to a situation-internal state thus producing a restitutive interpretation, if adjoined to a higher verbal projection, it relates to an eventuality resulting in a repetitive interpretation. Proceeding from the assumption that adverbial adjuncts have base positions which reflect their semantic relations to the rest of the sentence, repetitive wieder is shown to belong to the class of eventuality adverbs that minimally c-command the base positions of all arguments, whereas restitutive wieder has many properties in common with process (manner) adjuncts that minimally c-command the verb in clause-final base position.
Poesie und Prosa der Europa-Idee. Novalis' "Die Christenheit oder Europa" und seine modernen Leser
(2003)
An (...) [Novalis’ ‚Die Christenheit oder Europa’] ist alles problematisch: seine Fassung, sein Titel, seine Gattung und der damit vom Text selbst erhobene und reflektierte Geltungsanspruch, seine Begriffe von Religion und Politik sowie schließlich, und darin liegt ja die Brisanz des Ganzen, das Verhältnis von beiden. ‚Die Christenheit oder Europa’ formuliert auf der Grundlage eines idealisierten mittelalterlichen Katholizismus eine aktuelle europäisch-politische als religiöse Heilserwartung. (...) [Auch ist dieser Text] ist ein Lehrstück dafür, dass literarische Texte nicht von sich aus ohne weiteres, sondern immer in bestimmten Funktionszusammenhängen gegeben und verstehbar sind.
In this artiele I reanalyze sibilant inventories of Slavic languages by taking into consideration acoustic. perceptive and phonological evidence. The main goal of this study is to show that perception is an important factor which determines the shape of sibilant inventories. The improvement of perceptual contrast essentially contributes to creating new sibilant inventories by (i) changing the place of articulation of the existing phonemes (ii) merging sibilants that are perceptually very close or (iii) deleting them.
It has also been shown that the symbol s traditionally used in Slavic linguistics corresponds to two sounds in the IP A system: it stands for a postalveolar sibilant (ʃ) in some Slavic languages, as e.g. Bulagarian, Czech, Slovak, some Serbian and Croatian dialects, whereas in others like Polish, Russian, Lower Sorbian it functions as a retroflex (ʂ). This discrepancy is motivated by the fact that ʃ is not optimal in terms of maintaining sufficient perceptual contrast to other sibilants such as s and ɕ. If ʃ occurs together with s (and sʲ) there is a considerable perceptual distance between them but if it occurs with ɕ in an inventory, the distance is much smaller. Therefore, the strategy most languages follow is the change from a postalveolar to a retroflex sibilant.
Pfeilzeichen sind im Alltag des postmodernen Menschen mindestens ebenso präsent, wie es die Pfeile im Leben unserer jagenden Vorfahren gewesen sein dürften. Sie übernehmen wichtige Funktionen bei der Orientierung im Raum, bei der Bedienung von Geräten und bei der Tradierung von Wissen. Pfeilzeichen finden sich draußen wie drinnen, in gedruckten wie in digitalen Medien, sie sind Bestandteile von Bildern, Texten und mathematischen Formeln und vermitteln in vielfältiger Weise zwischen Text, Bild und Zahl. Im Laufe der Zeit hat sich das Pfeilzeichen zu einer hochflexiblen Zeichenfamilie mit einem breiten Spektrum an Formen, Bedeutungen und Funktionen entwickelt. Diese "semiotische Karriere" des Pfeilzeichens möchten wir im folgenden Abschnitt an ausgewählten Beispielen aus Kunst, Literatur und Alltag nachzeichnen, um uns anschließend der erneuten Ausdifferenzierung des semiotischen Potenzials in den neuen Medien zuzuwenden. Die Pfeilzeichen dienen uns dabei als Beispiel, um drei Thesen über Prozesse semiotischen Wandels zu belegen: 1. Neue Zeichenfunktionen und -bedeutungen bilden sich stets auf der Basis bereits vorhandener Funktionen und Bedeutungen heraus. Dabei werden alte Bedeutungen in den seltensten Fällen ersetzt; vielmehr handelt es sich um Prozesse semiotischer Ausdifferenzierung, bei der "ältere" Funktionen und Bedeutungen mit verändertem Stellenwert erhalten bleiben. 2. Die Ausdifferenzierung erhöht die potenzielle Ambiguität von Zeichen und Zeichenkomplexen, sodass deren Interpretation den Zeichenbenutzern immer mehr abverlangt. Gerade am Beispiel der Pfeilzeichen lässt sich sehr gut zeigen, dass deren Funktion und Bedeutung in hohem Maße kontext- und mediengebunden ist und in neuen Medien oft neu erlernt werden muss. 3. Grundlegend für die semiotische Ausdifferenzierung des Pfeilzeichens ist der Stellenwert des Pfeils in einem komplexen Handlungsrahmen, auf den wir mit dem Ausdruck "Pfeil-Szenario" Bezug nehmen. Darin dient der Pfeil als Geschoss einer Waffe, z. B. eines Pfeil-Bogens, seltener auch einer Armbrust oder eines Blasrohrs. Der Pfeil ist ein Element der gesamten Waffe, die sich aus Pfeilspitze, Schaft, Federn (und Ritze) zusammensetzt.
On the early development of aspect in greek and russian child language, a comparative analysis
(2003)
The category of aspect is grammaticized in both Greek and Russian opposing perfective and imperfective verb forms in all inflectional categories except the nonpast (‘present’). Despite these similarities there are important differences in the way the aspectual systems function in the two languages. While in Greek nearly all verbs oppose a perfective to a given imperfective grammatical form, Russian aspect is more strongly lexicalized with pairs of imperfective and perfective lexemes not only differing aspectually, but also as far as their lexical meanings are concerned. This is especially true of perfective verbs formed by prefixes as compared to their imperfective bases. Thus, in pairs of prefixed and unprefixed dynamic verbs, the derived prefixed (perfective) member has a telic meaning while its unprefixed (imperfective) counterpart is atelic (e.g. sjest’ (PFV) ‘to eat up’ vs. jest’ (IPF) ‘to eat’). Such derived perfective verbs may in turn be “secondarily” imperfectivized by suffixation furnishing the only “true” perfective/imperfective pairs of verbs (e.g. sjest’ (PFV) ‘to eat up’ vs. sjedat’ (IPF) ‘to eat up’ (iterative)). “Secondary” imperfectives do not occur in our child data.
In this pilot study, we will analyze the tense-aspect-mood forms of the 20 most frequent verbs with equivalent meanings occurring in the longitudinal audiotaped data of a Greek and a Russian boy between 2;1 and 2;3 (their entire lexical inventories comprise approx. 100 verbs each).
We adopt a constructivist perspective on the development of aspect in Greek and Russian child language and will show that in spite of a broad inventory of imperfective and perfective verb forms to be found in the speech of both children aspect has not yet developed into a generalized grammatical category, but is strongly dependent on aktionsart (stative/dynamic, telic/atelic) in both languages. While this results in a strong preference for perfective verb forms of telic verbs and of imperfective forms of atelic ones in the speech of the Greek boy, the Russian child tends to use the unmarked members.
It has been previously reported that in languages demonstrating the Root Infinitive (RI) Stage the use of RIs is characterized by two properties: these forms are overwhelmingly eventive and have, in the majority of instances, a modal interpretation. Hoekstra and Hyams (1998, 1999) have proposed a theory stating that these two properties of RIs are co-dependent in that the application of the modal reference restriction limits the use of the aspectual verbal classes to eventive predicates. Furthermore, this theory assumed that the described mutual dependency of these constraints was valid cross-linguistically.
In this paper, we investigate the application of this theory to the case of RIs in Russian, one of the languages exhibiting the RI Stage. Using new longitudinal data from two monolingual Russian-speaking children, we demonstrate that the predictions of Hoekstra and Hyams’ approach are not realized for Russian child speech. While the constraint requiring that Ris have a modal reference does not seem to apply in Russian since the infinitival forms do receive past and present tense interpretation, these predicates are still overwhelmingly eventive and stative predicates appear mostly as finite verbs. Having shown that a theory connecting the application of the two restrictions on RIs does not account for the Russian data, we examine several alternative analyses of Russian RIs. We arrive at a conclusion that an explanation based on the lack of the event variable in stative predicates (Kratzer 1989) necessary for the interpretation of RIs in discourse (Avrutin 1997) succeeds in handling the Russian data presented in this article.
In his book "Fiction and Diction", Gerard Genette bemoans a contradiction between the pretense and the practice of narratological research. Instead of studying all kind of narratives, for Genette, narratological research concentrates de facto on the techniques of fictional narrative. Correspondingly, Genette speaks of a "fictional narratology" in the pejorative sense of a discipline that sets arbitrary limits on its area of study. In his objection, the narratology that literary scholars practice considers fictional narrative to be at least the standard case of any narrative. In other words, what is merely a special case, within a wide field of narratives, is here elevated to narrative par excellence. According to Genette, narratology does not omit the domain of non-fictional narratives from its investigations with any justification, but rather annexes it without addressing its specific elements.
What are possible ways in which this perspective, which Genette criticizes as truncated, can be set right? Can the problem, as outlined, simply be solved by expanding the area of study in narratological research? Or are there not, perhaps, important differences between fictional and nonfictional narratives which seem to encourage narratological research, understood as a fundamental discipline of literary study, under the heading of "fictional narratology"?
In order to come to an answer here, we will first discuss the problem of differentiating between fictional and non-fictional narratives, as well as the possibility of a connection between narrative and fictionality theory. Second, we will expand our considerations to encompass pragmatic and historical aspects of narratives in order to delineate the scope of our proposal.