Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (1213)
- Part of a Book (784)
- Working Paper (254)
- Review (181)
- Conference Proceeding (166)
- Preprint (122)
- Book (108)
- Part of Periodical (64)
- Report (58)
- Doctoral Thesis (23)
Language
Has Fulltext
- yes (2991) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (436)
- Syntax (151)
- Linguistik (126)
- Englisch (123)
- Semantik (112)
- Spracherwerb (96)
- Phonologie (85)
- Rezension (77)
- Kroatisch (68)
- Fremdsprachenlernen (67)
Institute
- Extern (438)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) Mannheim (113)
- Neuere Philologien (43)
- Sprachwissenschaften (43)
- Universitätsbibliothek (4)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (3)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Medizin (2)
- Präsidium (2)
- SFB 268 (2)
Este artigo aborda parte dos resultados de uma pesquisa mais abrangente que objetivou compreender (inter)relações que se estabelecem entre práticas de leitura e escrita em alemão e em português de crianças do Ensino Fundamental e o contexto de língua de herança em que estão inseridas. Quanto à dimensão teórica, o estudo filia-se à área da Linguística Aplicada em diálogo com a Educação em contextos interculturais. A pesquisa, de base qualitativo-interpretativista, teve como locus uma escola municipal, em zona rural do município de Blumenau, Santa Catarina. Quanto aos procedimentos metodológicos, foram utilizadas duas propostas de produção de narrativas escritas, uma em português e outra em alemão. Os resultados sugerem que (i) as crianças têm domínio restrito de uma estrutura narrativa e aplicam-na parcialmente nas produções em ambas as línguas; (ii) o vocabulário e as estruturas gramaticais são característicos das práticas linguageiras cotidianas; iii) os estudantes desconhecem ou não internalizaram regras ortográficas, especialmente da língua alemã. A partir dos resultados da pesquisa afirma-se a importância de se garantir, na educação formal, o aprendizado da língua de herança, ao lado do português, em contextos bi/multilíngues similares.
Rethinking the adjunct
(2000)
The purpose of the present paper is twofold: first, to show that, when defining the adjunct, it is necessary to distinguish in a strict modular way between the syntactic level and the lexico-semantic level. Thus, the adjunct is a syntactic category on a par with the specifier and the complement, whereas the argument belongs to the same set as does (among others) the modifier. The consequence of this distinction is that there is no direct one-to-one opposition between adjuncts and arguments. Nor is there any direct one-to one relation between adjuncts and modifiers.
The second and main purpose of the paper is to account for the well-known difference between the position of a specific set of modifiers (cause, time, place etc.) in, on the one hand, English and Swedish, on the other, German. In English and Swedish the default position of these modifiers is postverbal, whereas in German it is preverbal. Further, in English and Swedish, these modifiers occur in a mirror order compared with their German counterparts, an order which, from a semantic point of view, is not the expected one. I shall demonstrate that this difference is due to the different settings of the verbal head parameter, the former languages being VO-languages and the latter being OV -languages. I shall further argue that in English and Swedish these modifiers are base generated as adjuncts to an empty VP, which is a complement of the main verb of what I shall call the minimal VP (MVP), whereas in German they are adjuncts on top of the MVP. Finally, I shall argue that the postverbal modifiers move at the latest at LF to the top of the MVP, in order to take scope over it, the restriction being 'Shortest move'. The movement results in the correct scope order of the postverbal modifiers.
The proposed structure also accounts for the binding data, in particular for the binding of a specific Swedish possessive anaphor 'sin'. This pronoun, which may occur within the MVP, must not occur within the postverbal modifiers in the empty VP. This supports the assumption that there is a strict borderline between the MVP and the assumed empty VP. The account is also in accordance with the focus data, the specific set of modifiers being potential focus exponents in a wide focus reading in English and Swedish, but not in German.
Problemstellung: Die Junggrammatiker rekonstruierten die Paradigmen der idg. Verbalflexion nach dem Muster des formenreichen Altindischen und Altgriechischen; ihr Verfahren wird von weiten Kreisen noch heute befolgt. Seit dem Bekanntwerden des Hethitischen haben einzelne Forscher den umgekehrten Weg eingeschlagen und ein formenarmes System als Ausgangspunkt der Entwicklung erklärt.
Georg von der Gabelentz (1840-1893) war Zeitgenosse und theoretischer Gegenspieler der Junggrammatiker. […] 1881 veröffentlichte er seine heute noch brauchbare 'Chinesische Grammatik', 1891 sein großes theoretisches Werk 'Die Sprachwissenschaft, ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse' (2. Auflage 1901 von A. Graf von der Schulenburg herausgegeben; Neudruck 1969 als 'Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 1' von G. Narr und U. Petersen).
[...]
[I]m vorliegenden Zusammenhang [interessiert] die Frage, ob die Unterscheidung der beiden Systeme etwa für die genealogisch-historische Sprachforschung einen Fortschritt in der Theorie bedeutet. Die mannigfachen und oft widersprüchlichen Neigungen, Tendenzen usw. in der sprachlichen Entwicklung dürften teils im analytischen, teils im synthetischen System ihren letzten Grund haben. So scheint die konservative Tendenz in der Sprache auf dem analytischen System zu beruhen, während das synthetische System die Gelegenheit zur Fortentwicklung bietet und zu einer solchen durch die Vielfalt gebotener Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten anregt.
This paper deals with the linguistic situation of the European Union, especially considering the role played by the German language. Beginning with some general remarks on the historical mechanisms that may influence the relative importance of a given language on a global scale, the history of the German language is discussed with the aim of explaining its present situation as the language with the greatest number of native speakers in Europe. which, at the same time, plays a relatively unimportant role in international communication.
Kripke's "modal argument" uses consideration about scope within modal contexts to show that proper names and definite descriptions must be of two different semantic types. I reexamine the data that is used to motivate Kripke's argument, and suggest that it, in fact, indicates that proper names behave exactly like a certain type of definite description, which I call "particularized" descriptions.
What are incremental themes?
(2001)
In this paper I examine the approach to incremental themes developed in Krifka 1992,1998, Dowty 1991 and others, which argues that the extent of a telic event is determined by the extent of its incrementally affected theme. This approach identifies the defining property of an accomplishment event as being the fact that the theme relation is a homomorphism from parts of the event to parts of the (incremental) theme. I show that there are a large number of accomplishments, both lexical and derived via resultative predication, which cannot be characterised in this way. I then show that it is more insightful to characterise accomplishments in terms of their internally complex structure: an accomplishment event consists of a non-incremental activity event and an incrementally structured 'BECOME' event, which are related by a contextually available one-one function in such a way that the incremental structure of the latter is imposed on the activity.
This paper presents an analysis of secondary predicates as aspectual modifiers and secondary predication as a summing operation which sums the denotation of the matrix verb and the secondary predicate. I argue that, as opposed to the summing peration involved in simple conjunction, there is a constraint on secondary predication; in the 0 case of depictives, the event introduced by the matrix verb must be PART-OF the event introduced by the secondary predicate, where e1 is PART-OF e2 if the running time of e1 is contained in the running time of e2 and if e1 and e2 share a grammatical argument. I argue resultative predication differs from depictive predication in that the PART-OF constraint holds in resultative constructions between the event which is the culmination of e1 and e2: formally, while depictive predication introduces the statement PART-OF(e1,e2), resultative predication introduces the statement PART-OF(cul(e1),e2). I show that this is all that is necessary to explain the well-known properties of resultative predication.