400 Sprache
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (594)
- Conference Proceeding (401)
- Part of a Book (357)
- Preprint (115)
- Book (67)
- Review (54)
- Report (52)
- Working Paper (45)
- Part of Periodical (32)
- Doctoral Thesis (29)
- Contribution to a Periodical (12)
- Other (4)
- Bachelor Thesis (3)
- Magister's Thesis (3)
- magisterthesis (3)
- Course Material (1)
- Diploma Thesis (1)
- diplomthesis (1)
- Habilitation (1)
- Lecture (1)
- Master's Thesis (1)
Language
- English (1037)
- German (582)
- Croatian (84)
- Portuguese (19)
- French (15)
- Multiple languages (15)
- Turkish (14)
- mis (7)
- Spanish (2)
- Danish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (1777) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (88)
- Linguistik (63)
- Rezension (55)
- Spracherwerb (51)
- Syntax (43)
- Semantik (38)
- Informationsstruktur (35)
- Sprachtest (35)
- Sprache (34)
- Sinotibetische Sprachen (32)
Institute
- Extern (266)
- Neuere Philologien (74)
- Sprachwissenschaften (47)
- Präsidium (12)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (6)
- Informatik (5)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Informatik und Mathematik (2)
- Medizin (2)
- SFB 268 (2)
Friedrich Schlegel's lasting contribution to linguistics is usually seen in the impact that his book "Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier" from 1808 left on comparative linguistics and on the study of Sanskrit. Schlegel was one of the first European scholars to have studied Sanskrit extensively and he made a number of translations of Sanskrit literature into German which make up one third of "Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier". Schlegel's book is widely regarded as a founding document both of comparative linguistics and of indology, a fact which is quite remarkable in light of the development of Schlegel's thought after this text. His interest in Indian studies ceased more or less directly with the publication of this work, while his thoughts on language became more and more suffused by transcendental philosophy.
The argument that I tried to elaborate on in this paper is that the conceptual problem behind the traditional competence/performance distinction does not go away, even if we abandon its original Chomskyan formulation. It returns as the question about the relation between the model of the grammar and the results of empirical investigations – the question of empirical verification The theoretical concept of markedness is argued to be an ideal correlate of gradience. Optimality Theory, being based on markedness, is a promising framework for the task of bridging the gap between model and empirical world. However, this task not only requires a model of grammar, but also a theory of the methods that are chosen in empirical investigations and how their results are interpreted, and a theory of how to derive predictions for these particular empirical investigations from the model. Stochastic Optimality Theory is one possible formulation of a proposal that derives empirical predictions from an OT model. However, I hope to have shown that it is not enough to take frequency distributions and relative acceptabilities at face value, and simply construe some Stochastic OT model that fits the facts. These facts first of all need to be interpreted, and those factors that the grammar has to account for must be sorted out from those about which grammar should have nothing to say. This task, to my mind, is more complicated than the picture that a simplistic application of (not only) Stochastic OT might draw.
The aim of this paper is the exploration of an optimality theoretic architecture for syntax that is guided by the concept of "correspondence": syntax is understood as the mechanism of "translating" underlying representations into a surface form. In minimalism, this surface form is called "Phonological Form" (PF). Both semantic and abstract syntactic information are reflected by the surface form. The empirical domain where this architecture is tested are minimal link effects, especially in the case of "wh"-movement. The OT constraints require the surface form to reflect the underlying semantic and syntactic representations as maximally as possible. The means by which underlying relations and properties are encoded are precedence, adjacency, surface morphology and prosodic structure. Information that is not encoded in one of these ways remains unexpressed, and gets lost unless it is recoverable via the context. Different kinds of information are often expressed by the same means. The resulting conflicts are resolved by the relative ranking of the relevant correspondence constraints.
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.
Weak function word shift
(2004)
The fact that object shift only affects weak pronouns in mainland Scandinavian is seen as an instance of a more general observation that can be made in all Germanic languages: weak function words tend to avoid the edges of larger prosodic domains. This generalisation has been formulated within Optimality Theory in terms of alignment constraints on prosodic structure by Selkirk (1996) in explaining thedistribution of prosodically strong and weak forms of English functionwords, especially modal verbs, prepositions and pronouns. But a purely phonological account fails to integrate the syntactic licensing conditions for object shift in an appropriate way. The standard semantico-syntactic accounts of object shift, onthe other hand, fail to explain why it is only weak pronouns that undergo object shift. This paper develops an Optimality theoretic model of the syntax-phonology interface which is based on the interaction of syntactic and prosodic factors. The account can successfully be applied to further related phenomena in English and German.
This paper is part of a research project on OT Syntax and the typology of the free relative (FR) construction. It concentrates on the details of an OT analysis and some of its consequences for OT syntax. I will not present a general discussion of the phenomenon and the many controversial issues it is famous for in generative syntax.
The present paper is devoted to the old and always vexing problem of the linguistical ethnogenesis of the Slavs. The theme of the fate of the Indo-Europeans ancestors of the Slavic people is by its very nature broad and complex, too broad actually for a short essay. That is the reason why we have resigned ourselves to a detailed regular treatment, while presenting only some of the more interesting results and observations based mostly on new etymological studies of words and proper names. The major purpose is to combine linguistic and ethnic history and to proceed to its (fragmentary) reconstruction. Accordingly, our purpose is as simple as it can be for such a wide scope topic: to reconstruct the form, meaning and origin of the Old Slavic lexicon and to extract, if possible, more information about the history of the Slavic people from these linguistic data. The work of reconstructing the Common Slavic lexicon is being carried out in Moscow and Cracow, as far as the major new etymological dictionaries are concerned. A considerably larger number of scholars are concerned with these problems in Russia than in other countries. A reliable reconstruction of words and meanings is the key to any reconstruction of the culture. Why did the Slavs replace the IE name of the 'harrow' by a new word? How did the Ancient Slavs get a term for the process of 'paying'? What are we to think about the case of 'the Slavs and the sea'? How did a word for 'ship' appear among the Slavs? We now know how to answer these and many other questions (we shall revert later to the case of the sea), but the motivation of many other words remains as obscure as before. Others have fallen into oblivion and survive at best on the onomastic level - hence, our keen interest for onomastics and such new works as the Dictionary of Ukrainian waternames [2] that expand our knowledge of the Old Slavic common lexicon and provide new insights into onomastics proper, e.g. the Slavic toponymic 'superdialect,' the existence of genuine Slavic waternames (i.e. those without appellative stage, e.g. *morica and its continuations in different areas of Slavic hydronymy). It is not possible to determine the earliest area the Slavs occupied or, at least, their original homeland without studying etymology and onomastics. How can this question be solved? There are straightforward ways to do it (e.g. by marking off an area with many or only purely Slavic placenames and waternames), but there must also be subtler, more accurate ways. What happened to the lexicon and the onomastics of an ancient people at the time of migration? Did it name only what it saw and knew itself? Our studies show that "a people's vocabulary transcends its actual experience" [3, p. XLVII] ; thus, it preserves not only its own fossilized experience, but a foreign "hearsay" experience as well. The Slavic written tradition begins at a relatively late date - from the IXth century. But any Slavic word or name, although unwritten, can be a record, a memento reflected at some time in another language. Thus, the personal name of a king of the Antae - rex Boz. (in Jordanes [Vlth century] usually interpreted as Bozi 'God's), reflects an early Slavic vozi or vozi, Russian dial. voz (a calque of rex = voh), learned vozd?'chief, leader', already palatalized in the IVth century (the time of the described events and of the person named) - practically an up-to-date form!
The boundaries between Semantics and Pragmatics still deserve to be investigated, since they remain unclear for many linguists, and since the word "pragmatics" has quite often been used among Brazilian linguists in an unscientific, rhetorical way, to enhance the importance of some approaches to meaning and interpretation. This paper claims that a theoretically sound boundary can be drawn between semantical and pragmatical approaches if we look at the way they deliver interpretations. Semantic interpretations are typically the result of some kind of calculus, whereas pragmatic interpretations are typically the result of some working out where no calculus intervenes, rather a highly specific solution is sought in order to integrate some unexpected fact into a coherent story. Thus defined, Semantics and Pragmatics can be referred to as deduction and abduction, respectively. In the light of the distinction just described, I revisit some of the phenomena that were pointed out in the last decades as best examples of the pragmatic functioning of natural language. I argue that presupposition, deixis and speech acts, highly predictable from lexicon and grammar, are semantical in nature; on dle contrary, implicature, since it depends on abductive thinking and it is not predictable from linguistic form, is described as a pragmatic phenomenon par excellence.
Nominalreferenz, Zeitkonstitution, Aspekt, Aktionsart : eine semantische Erklärung ihrer Interaktion
(1989)
In der vorliegenden Arbeit berichte ich über den Erklärungsansatz, den ich im Rahmen einer modelltheoretischen Semantik zur Beschreibung dieses Phänomens entwickelt habe. Ich konzentriere mich hierbei auf die zugrundeliegende Motivation und die intuitive Charakterisierung dieser Theorie. Leser, die an den Einzelheiten der Durchführung und an weiteren Anwendungsmöglichkeiten der Theorie interessiert sind, seien auf Krifka (1987, 1989) verwiesen: ein forschungshistorischer Abriß zu alternativen Theorien findet sich in Krifka (1986).
It is by now a weIl-known topic in semantics that there are striking similarities between the meanings of nominal and verbal expressions, insofar as the mass:count distinction in the nominal domain is reflected in the atelic:telic distinction in the verbal domain (cf. Leisi 1953, Taylor 1977, Bach 1986, to cite just a few authors). However, these supposed similarities have not be made explicit in formal representations.