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
- English (1397)
- German (1061)
- Croatian (298)
- Portuguese (120)
- Turkish (43)
- Multiple languages (25)
- French (21)
- mis (16)
- Spanish (7)
- Polish (4)
Keywords
- Deutsch (437)
- Syntax (151)
- Linguistik (129)
- 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)
U radu se iznose tzv. lažni parovi (prijatelji), leksemi u hrvatskom i rumunjskom jeziku koji zbog svoje izrazne podudarnosti navode na pogrešno prevođenje. Navode se značajke koje su dovele do takvih pojava. S obzirom na podrijetlo, najčešće je riječ o leksemima naslijeđenima iz latinskoga jezika ili kasnijim romanizmima te dakako slavenskima, kojih je u rumunjskome nezanemariv broj. Izdvojeni se leksemi razvrstavaju u tablicu koja omogućuje njihovu prozirniju usporedbu i lakše prepoznavanje.
U hrvatski su jezik tijekom povijesti ulazile riječi ponajviše iz zemljopisno najbližih jezika, najčešće i službenih ili glavnih jezika nekadašnjih zajedničkih država. Nedvojbeno je velik utjecaj imao i latinski jezik jer je bio temelj nadgradnje hrvatskoga književnog i standardnog jezika te sredstvo očuvanja identiteta hrvatske nacije i hrvatskoga jezika. Ruski jezik ne pripada teritorijalno bliskim jezicima, a nema ni spomenutu vrijednost latinskoga jezika. Njegov je utjecaj na hrvatski jezik kulturološki: kroz književnost te nacionalnu i društvenu politiku. Rusizmi u hrvatski jezik ulaze tijekom triju razdoblja: 1. razdoblje ilirskoga pokreta (uz izravni utjecaj B. Šuleka), 2. razdoblje poslijeratne Jugoslavije i Sovjetskoga Saveza (sovjetizmi), 3. razdoblje nakon raspada socijalističkih država i oblikovanja demokratskih i samostalnih zemalja – Republike Hrvatske i Ruske Federacije. U posljednjemu razdoblju gotovo je dokinuta upotreba sovjetizama, no aktivirali su se drugi rusizmi. Rječnik stranih riječi Bratoljuba Klaića kulturno je dobro hrvatskoga jezika te je ujedno i pokazatelj utjecaja političkih i kulturoloških čimbenika na razvoj hrvatskoga jezika. Kroz Rječnik se tako može pratiti i sudbina rusizama u hrvatskome jeziku. Cilj je ovoga rada prikazati položaj i opis rusizama u hrvatskome jeziku kroz odabrana izdanja Rječnika.
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.
Russian predicate cleft constructions have the surprising property of being associated with adversative clauses of the opposite polarity. I argue that clefts are associated with adversative clauses because they have the semantics of S-Topics in Büring's (1997, 2000) sense of the term. It is shown that the polarity of the adversative clause is obligatorily opposed to that of the cleft because the use of a cleft gives rise to a relevance-based pragmatic scale. The ordering principle according to which these scale
The present study offers an analysis of the Russian copular constructions with predicate nominals. In such copular sentences two cases may mark the predicate: the nominative and the instrumental as in 'Anna byla medsestra/medsestroj' - 'Anna was-3sg.fem.a nursenom/instr'. In the present tense the copula has a null-form and the predicate nominal can only be in the nominative. I argue that the case alternation corresponds to the distinction of Stage Level and Individual Level Predicates in the sense of Kratzer (1994) and Diesing (1992), but with some objections. The copula with Instrumental forms S-Predicates, which are analyzed as predicates applying to situations referring to time. The copula with nominative forms I-Predicates, which attribute properties to individuals without referring to time. I-Predicates have no situation argument. Data that show the (in-)compatibility of copular sentences with certain spatial or temporal modifiers provide a reason to assume a situation argument in byt' + Instr but not in byt' + Nom.
Byt' behaves differently in different grammatical contexts: in contexts of sentence negation, yes/no-questions and under focus byt' + Instr behaves like a lexical category, while byt' + Nom behaves like a functional category. As a functional category byt' + Nom is non-overt in the present and is always finite. The semantic distinction between nominative and instrumental predicate NPs is pegged to an opposition between a structure with a functional copula as the only tense and agreement marker with base position in TP and a lexical copula in VP (Franks 1995, Bailyn&Rubin 1991). To explain phenomena of the copula in Russian I propose an integrated syntactic model for two copulas. The two copulas may be conceived as distinct realizations of one verbal lexical entry which will be specified as a lexical or as functional category in the course of lexical insertion. The Model of Parallel Morphology might be used to explain this phenomenon.
The claim advanced in this paper is that the presence of a left-dislocated element together with a resumptive clitic in Bulgarian is a special case of argument saturation with implications for the focus structure of the clause, while contrast involves discontinuous focus (contrastive topics/foci) with no clitics present in the derivation. Contrastive topic/focus constructions in Bulgarian can be united on the view that they involve (sets of) ordered pairs where the higher element is valuing a contrastive feature (cf. OCC in Chomsky 2001) while the element in the VP is a non-contrastive topic or focus. The contrastive feature participates in wh-structures but not in clitic-left-dislocated structures where pairing between arguments is 'accidental'.