Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (1356)
- 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 (1540)
- 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 (130)
- Englisch (123)
- Semantik (112)
- Spracherwerb (96)
- Phonologie (86)
- 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)
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.
This paper presents an LTAG analysis of reflexives like himself and reciprocals like each other. These items need to find a c-commanding antecedent from which they retrieve (part of) their own denotation and with which they syntactically agree. The relation between anaphoric item and antecendent must satisfy the following important locality conditions (Chomsky (1981)).
In this paper we argue that at least for some languages, when there are suitable o-commanders of its selectional domain, a reflexive in the bottom of its obliqueness hierarchy escapes exemption via a reshuffling of its local binding domain. The outcome of such reshuffling is that the local domain extends to include o-commanders of the reflexive in the subcategorization domain immediately upstairs, that is in the domain whose head predicator directly subcategorizes the domain headed by the predicator directly subcategorizing the reflexive.
Freie Relativsätze geben eine Reihe von Rätseln auf. Wie schon der Terminus andeutet, handelt es sich hier um eine widersprüchliche Erscheinung, da ein Relativsatz sich per definitionem auf ein Element im Matrixsatz bezieht, dies bei „freien Relativsätzen" jedoch nicht der Fall ist. Sie üben im übergeordneten Satz selbständig eine Satzgliedfunktion aus. Andererseits drängt sich der Eindruck auf, daß ein Bezugselement im Matrixsatz weggelassen wurde, es sich mithin also um verkappte Attributsätze handelt. Leirbukt hat sich kürzlich in einer empirischen Studie mit durch das Pronomen wer eingeleiteten Relativsätzen beschäftigt, und zwar vor allem im Hinblick auf die Frage, wann ein Bezugselement gesetzt wird bzw. nicht gesetzt wird (Leirbukt 1995). Hierzu haben eine Reihe von Grammatikern die Auffassung vertreten, daß ein Bezugselement im Matrixsatz nur dann fehlen kann, wenn das Relativpronomen die Kasusforderung des Matrixsatzes für die entsprechende Leerstelle erfüllt.
Standardisierung ist der bedeutendste Ansatz zu Qualitätssteigerung und Kostensenkung in der Technischen Dokumentation. Es gibt eine Reihe von Standardisierungsansätzen: Modularisierung, Informationsstrukturen, Terminologie, Sprachstrukturen. Dennoch werden diese Ebenen meist getrennt voneinander beschrieben. Wir untersuchen, wie Standardisierungen im Informationsmodell, in der Terminologie und in den sprachlichen Strukturen verknüpft werden und miteinander interagieren.
Die Sprachsituation in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz wird in neuerer Zeit mit dem Begriff "mediale Diglossie" gekennzeichnet (vgl. P. Sieber/H. Sitta 1986, S. 20). Damit wird zum Ausdruck gebracht, daß der Deutschschweizer Mundart spricht, aber Standardsprache schreibt und liest; R. Schwarzenbach (1969, S. 24-27) gebraucht deshalb für das gesprochene Schriftdeutsch auch den Begriff "Lese- und Vortragssprache". Im allgemeinen stimmt diese Verteilung, sie wird aber auch durchbrochen: in den Massenmedien (vgl. M. Ramseier 1988), in der Schule bzw. Universität (vgl. P. Sieber/H. Sitta 1986) und in öffentlichen Reden (vgl. R. Schwarzenbach 1969, S. 241-312) wird auch Standardsprache gesprochen, andererseits sind private Briefe und Werbetexte teilweise in Mundart (R. Schwarzenbach 1969, S. 344-377) verfaßt. Es gibt seit den späten 1960er Jahren auch eine wiedererstarkte Mundartliteratur und gedruckte mundartliche Chansons. Daß das Sprechen der Standardsprache relativ unüblich ist, zeigt die paradoxe, aber fast alltägliche Aussage jemand habe Schriftdeutsch gesprochen.
Wenn Deutsch geschrieben wird, wird im Allgemeinen die standardsprachliche Form gewählt. King: nei nei nöd eso Häx ..... verschtasch mi wieder falsch :-( *sniff (bluewin.ch, #flirt60plus, 1.10.2004) Elle: HeinEr: öhm jez versteh ich gar nix mehr (Antenne Bayern #flirten40, 16.9.2005) Big: Mu auch niemand verstehen (IRCnet, #mannheim,9.2.2003) Tezo: verstehe (IRCnet, #linux, 7.1.2003) In Büchern, Zeitungen, Zeitschriften und auch im Internet ist die deutsche Standardsprache Standard. Sie ist die für die Schriftlichkeit normierte Varietät, die überregional verständlich sein soll. Diese Standardsprache ist zwar überall ähnlich, aber nicht gleich. So zeigen sich Besonderheiten im Lexikon, in der Wortbildung und vereinzelt in der Grammatik, welche in einer Region üblich sind, in der anderen jedoch nicht, oder die da eine andere Bedeutung tragen. Diese Besonderheiten sind aber nicht an einem Ort einfach falsch, sondern sie stellen regionale Ausprägungen des Standards dar (vgl. dazu das Variantenwörterbuch; Ammon u. a. 2004). ...
Eigennamen stehen in einem vielfältigen Spannungsverhältnis zu Appellativen: Auf der einen Seite entwickeln sie sich fast immer aus - meist konkreten - Gattungsbezeichnungen (Eichstätt, Lindenstraße, Schneider), auf der anderen Seite besteht ihre Hauptfunktion - ganz im Gegensatz zu den Appellativen - in ihrer Monoreferentialität, d.h. in einem 1: 1- Bezug zu nur einem einzigen außersprachlichen Objekt (meist Örtlichkeiten im weitesten Sinn und Personen).
U radu se analiziraju eliptični oblici anglizama u ruskome i hrvatskome jeziku i dopunjuje pristup njihove dosadašnje kvalifikacije i klasifikacije. Preciznijim definicijama stupnja elipse u anglizmu predlaže se jednostavnije i jasnije određivanje njihovih granica i razlika. Na temelju rezultata analize anglizama uočene su nove mogućnosti u njihovu formiranju. U formiranju eliptičnoga oblika anglizma nije nužno samo ispuštanje određenih elemenata, već se eliptični oblik anglizma može formirati i s pomoću kombinacija drugih tvorbenih načina: kombinacijom elipse i supstitucije, elipse i kompozicije, elipse i adicije, elipse, supstitucije i adicije, elipse, supstitucije i kompozicije te kombinacijom elipse, adicije i kompozicije.
This paper is concerned with the fact that a number of adverbal modifications involve a systematic reinterpretation of at least one of the expressions connected by the operation in question. It offers an approach in which such transfers of meaning turn out to be a result of contextually controlled enrichments of an underspecified as well as a strictly compositionally structured semantic representation. The approach proposed is general for three reasons: First, it takes into account not only reinterpretations in temporal but also such in non-temporal modification. Second, it allows considering so-called secondary predications as a particular kind of adverbal modification. Third, it explains the respective reinterpretations within a uniform formal framework of meaning variation.
Relating propositions : subordination and coordination strategies in a polysynthetic language
(1998)
This paper discusses the relationship between the morphological structure of language and its syntactic structure. Although it is primarily a single language which is analysed in detail, namely, Inuktitut, an Eskimo language of the Canadian Eastern Arctic, the findings seem to be of general relevance.
This paper discusses the types of relative clause and noun complement structures found in the Rawang language, a Tibeto-Burman language of northern Myanmar, as well as their origin and uses, with data taken mainly from naturally occurring texts. Two types are preposed relative clauses, but in one the relative clause is nominalized, and in the other it is not. The non-nominalized form with a general head led to the development of nominalizing suffixes and one type of nominalized relative clause structure. As the nominalized form is a nominal itself, it can be postposed to the head in an appositional structure. There is also discussion of the Rawang structures in the context of Tibeto-Burman and the development of relative clause structures in the language family.
Relative clauses in Haya
(2010)
This paper gives an overview of the morphology and syntax of Haya relative clause constructions. It extends previous work on this topic (Duranti, 1977) by incorporating data from a number of different dialects and by introducing new data on locative relative clauses. The dialects discussed in addition to the Kihanja data from Byarushengo et al. (1977) include Kiziba, Muleba and Bugabo dialects. Nyambo data taken from Rugemalira (2005) is also compared to Haya in places. The focus of the discussion is on the grammaticality of pronominal elements attached to the verb that refer back to the relativized entity with different types of relativized constituents in Haya. It is shown that there are differences between subjects, objects and locatives in terms of this kind of morphology inside the relative clause, as well as differences between these kinds of morphemes and resumptive pronouns.
Remarks on binding theory
(2005)
We propose some reformulations of binding principle A that build on recent work by Pollard and Xue, and by Runner et al. We then turn to the thorny issue of the status of indices, in connection with the seemingly simpler Principle B. We conclude that the notion of index is fundamentally incoherent, and suggest some possible approaches to eliminating them as theoretical primitives. One possibility is to let logical variables take up the explanatory burden borne by indices, but this turns out to be fraught with difficulties. Another approach, which involves returning to the idea that referentially dependent expressions denote identity functions (as proposed, independently, by Pollard and Sag and by Jacobson) seerms to hold more promise.
Remarks on deixis
(1992)
The prevailing conception of deixis is oriented to the idea of 'concrete' physical and perceptual characteristics of the situation of speech. Signs standardly adduced as typical deictics are I, you, here, now, this, that. I and you are defined as meaning "the person producing the utterance in question" and "the person spoken to", here and now as meaning "where the speaker is at utterance time" and "at the moment the utterance is made" (also, "at the place/time of the speech exchange"); similarly, the meanings of this and that are as a rule defined via proximity to speaker's physical location. The elements used in such definitions form the conceptual framework of most of the general characterisations of deixis in the literature. [...] There is much in the literature, of course, that goes far beyond this framework . A great variety of elements, mostly with very abstract meanings, have been found to share deictic characteristics although they do not fit into the personnel-place-time-of-utterance schema. The adequacy of that schema is also called into question by many observations to the effect that the use of such standard deictics as here, now, this, that cannot really be accounted for on its basis, and by the far-reaching possibilities of orienting deictics to reference points in situations other than the situation of speech, to 'deictic centers' other than the speaker. [...] Analyses along the lines of the standard conception regularly acknowledge the existence of deviations from the assumed basic meanings. One traditional solution attributes them to speaker's "subjectivity", or to differences between "physical" and "psychological" space or time; in a similar vein, metaphorical extensions may be said to be at play, or a distinction between prototypical and non-prototypical meanings invoked. Quite apart from the question of the relative merits of these explanatory principles, which I do not wish to discuss here, the problem with all such accounts is that the definitions of the assumed basic meanings themselves are founded on axiom rather than analysis of situated use. The logical alternative, of course, is to set out for more abstract and comprehensive meaning definitions from the start. In fact, a number of recent, discourse-oriented, treatments of the demonstratives proceed this way; they view those elements as processing instructions rather than signs with inherently spatial denotation (Isard 1975, Hawkins 1978, Kirsner 1979, Linde 1979 , Ehlich 1982.)
Remarks on Marking
(2002)
This paper calls for a reexamination of the Marking Theory of HPSG, which in its standard form involves a considerable amount of dedicated formal machinery, but which proves to be inapplicable for most types of grammatical marking. As an alternative, it is demonstrated that head-marker phrases can be reanalyzed as head-complement structures, with the marking element treated as the syntactic head. This approach allows the elimination of all marking-specific formal apparatus, with the exception of the attribute MARKING, which percolates as an ordinary HEAD feature, and whose function is significantly expanded.
The proposed approach allows marking elements to be related to other lexical heads (prepositions, in particular), and marking constructions are better integrated in the grammar, rather than being grouped into an exceptional class of head-marker phrases.
This paper argues for a particular architecture of OT syntax. This architecture hasthree core features: i) it is bidirectional, the usual production-oriented optimisation (called ‘first optimisation’ here) is accompanied by a second step that checks the recoverability of an underlying form; ii) this underlying form already contains a full-fledged syntactic specification; iii) especially the procedure checking for recoverability makes crucial use of semantic and pragmatic factors. The first section motivates the basic architecture. The second section shows with two examples, how contextual factors are integrated. The third section examines its implications for learning theory, and the fourth section concludes with a broader discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed model.