400 Sprache
Refine
Year of publication
- 2007 (102) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (36)
- Article (28)
- Preprint (12)
- Report (9)
- Conference Proceeding (7)
- Working Paper (4)
- Book (2)
- Review (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (102)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (102)
Keywords
- focus (7)
- topic (4)
- Indogermanische Sprachen (3)
- Phonetik (3)
- Sinotibetische Sprachen (3)
- contrastive focus (3)
- givenness (3)
- Baltische Sprachen (2)
- Bulgarisch (2)
- Grammatik (2)
Institute
- Extern (15)
- Neuere Philologien (2)
The aim of this paper is to outline the means for encoding information structure in Yucatec Maya. Yucatec Maya is a tone language, displaying a three-fold opposition in the tonal realization of syllables. From the morpho-syntactic point of view, the grammar of Yucatec Maya contains morphological (topic affixes, morphological marking of out-of-focus predicates) and syntactic (designated positions) means to uniquely specify syntactic constructions for their information structure. After a descriptive overview of these phenomena, we present experimental evidence which reveals the impact of the nonavailability of prosodic alternatives on the choice of syntactic constructions in language production.
Contrastive focus
(2007)
The article puts forward a discourse-pragmatic approach to the notoriously evasive phenomena of contrastivity and emphasis. It is argued that occurrences of focus that are treated in terms of "contrastive focus", "kontrast" (Vallduví & Vilkuna 1998) or "identificational focus" (É. Kiss 1998) in the literature should not be analyzed in familiar semantic terms like introduction of alternatives or exhaustivity. Rather, an adequate analysis must take into account discourse-pragmatic notions like hearer expectation or discourse expectability of the focused content in a given discourse situation. The less expected a given content is judged to be for the hearer, relative to the Common Ground, the more likely a speaker is to mark this content by means of special grammatical devices, giving rise to emphasis.
New evidence is provided for a grammatical principle that singles out contrastive focus (Rooth 1996; Truckenbrodt 1995) and distinguishes it from discourse-new “informational” focus. Since the prosody of discourse-given constituents may also be distinguished from discourse-new, a three-way distinction in representation is motivated. It is assumed that an F-feature marks just contrastive focus (Jackendoff 1972, Rooth 1992), and that a G-feature marks discoursegiven constituents (Féry and Samek-Lodovici 2006), while discoursenew is unmarked. A crucial argument for G-marking comes from second occurrence focus (SOF) prosody, which arguably derives from a syntactic representation where SOF is both F-marked and G-marked. This analysis relies on a new G-Marking Condition specifying that a contrastive focus may be G-marked only if the focus semantic value of its scope is discourse-given, i.e. only if the contrast itself is given.
This article takes stock of the basic notions of Information Structure (IS). It first provides a general characterization of IS — following Chafe (1976) — within a communicative model of Common Ground (CG), which distinguishes between CG content and CG management. IS is concerned with those features of language that concern the local CG. Second, this paper defines and discusses the notions of Focus (as indicating alternatives) and its various uses, Givenness (as indicating that a denotation is already present in the CG), and Topic (as specifying what a statement is about). It also proposes a new notion, Delimitation, which comprises contrastive topics and frame setters, and indicates that the current conversational move does not entirely satisfy the local communicative needs. It also points out that rhetorical structuring partly belongs to IS.
Die Problematik des sprachkommunikativen Umgangs mit dem Kulturphänomen "Phraseologie" ist im Falle zwei- bzw. mehrsprachiger Diskursgemeinschaften bisher kaum ins Blickfeld der Forschung geraten. Daher konzentriert sich der vorliegende Aufsatz auf Aspekte phraseologischer Sprachverwendung in einem komplexen Konrakt-, Konvergenz- und Integrationsraum von mehreren Sprachen und Kulturen und möchte zur Modelierung bi- bzw. multilingualen Diskursverhaltens im Hinblick auf die Phraseologie beitragen, indem er ein breites Spektrum von enmpirischen Manifestationsklassen bzw. -typen kommunikativen Synkretismus und sprachlicher Hybridität erfasst, systematisiert, beschreibt und evaluiert. Diese Forschungsfrage erlangt auch insofern eine besondere Bedeutung, als sich die Mehrschichtigkeit bilingualer Variationsdimensionen gerade anhand der Phraseologieverwendung aspektreich eruieren Iässt.
Der vorliegende kurze Beitrag [hat] das Ziel, im diskutierten Problemrahmen konstitutive Aspekte der Horizonte, Konturen und Fluchtlinien einer dezidiert inter- bzw. transkulturellen Ausrichtung der Sprachwissenschaft anzudeuten und zu hinterfragen, ihre disziplinären Wege und Blickfelder anzulegen sowie über ein inter- bzw.transkulturelles ,,Paradigma" als "interkulturelle Linguistik" im Hinblick auf Profil, Tragfähigkeit und Reichweite zu reflektieren. All das soll dann zu einer extensionalen und intensionalen Bestimmung einer "interkulturellen Linguistik" hinführen.
Ein aktuelles Handbuch der empirischen Sozialforschung stellt fest: „Die meisten Theorien in den Sozialwissenschaften sind relativ ungenau formuliert und beziehen sich auf nicht exakt definierte Begriffe“ (SCHNELL/HILL/ESSER 2005: 11). Die Linguistik – so auch die Sprachgermanistik – sollte aus dieser Kritik produktive Konsequenzen ziehen und dezidierte Anstöße für eine theoretisch fundierte und empiriegestützte Begriffs- und Konzeptbildung von IKK erarbeiten. Nicht zuletzt mit der Intention, dass die IKK als Phänomentyp kein „weicher“ Forschungsgegenstand mehr bleiben darf und dementsprechend die IKK-Forschung nicht mehr als „weiche“ Wissenschaft gelten sollte.
This paper is concerned with the cultural reality characterised by the cmmunication within bi- or multilingual groups, in comparison to monolingual comniunication. In other words, such groups use their varieties of language differently. In this respect the paper deals with a culture of multilingualisrn, with a primary aim of highlighting subtly the characteristics end structure of the bi- or multilingual way of speaking. In particular, the predominant goal of this study is to emphasize respects of the "mixed" speech behaviour (the bilingual inode of discourse); and of innovations in speech and communication of transcultural bi- or multilingualism utilizing the example of the German as a minority language in Hungary. On the basis of the research it has become clear that linguistic variations and differentes should not be viewed automatically as individual mistakes but as a reaction to a new conununicative challenge. The conclusions for the discipline of "applird lingusitics" encompass that: all outcornes of communicative dynamic processes on the system of language concerning monolingual as well as bilingual language behaviour (inclusive of both "natural" and "artificial" bi- or multilingualism), should be considered more subtly both in theory and practice. In addition these outcomes must be analysed and heuristically described within an integrated frame.
We adopt Markert and Nissim (2005)’s approach of using the World Wide Web to resolve cases of coreferent bridging for German and discuss the strength and weaknesses of this approach. As the general approach of using surface patterns to get information on ontological relations between lexical items has only been tried on English, it is also interesting to see whether the approach works for German as well as it does for English and what differences between these languages need to be accounted for. We also present a novel approach for combining several patterns that yields an ensemble that outperforms the best-performing single patterns in terms of both precision and recall.
We investigate methods to improve the recall in coreference resolution by also trying to resolve those definite descriptions where no earlier mention of the referent shares the same lexical head (coreferent bridging). The problem, which is notably harder than identifying coreference relations among mentions which have the same lexical head, has been tackled with several rather different approaches, and we attempt to provide a meaningful classification along with a quantitative comparison. Based on the different merits of the methods, we discuss possibilities to improve them and show how they can be effectively combined.