Refine
Year of publication
- 2012 (15) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (9)
- Article (4)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Other (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Keywords
- Deutsch (4)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (3)
- Diskursanalyse (2)
- Gefühl (2)
- Politische Kommunikation (2)
- Politische Willensbildung (2)
- Akzent (1)
- Annotation (1)
- Automatische Sprachanalyse (1)
- Bartmiński, Jerzy (1)
Publicationstate
- Postprint (15) (remove)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (7)
- Peer-Review (4)
- Review-Status-unbekannt (1)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (1)
This paper deals with the constructional variation of emotion predicates in Estonian. It gives an overview on the constructional types, including information of their quantitative distribution. It is shown that one characteristic of Estonian is the formation of pairs of converses, i.e. pairs of emotion verbs, which have the same emotion semantics but different argument realisation patterns. These converses are based on derivational morphology such as the causative morphem –ta ‘CAUS’. Causative derivation has been adduced in the theoretical literature as support for the assumption that the cross-linguistically wide-spread constructional variation in emotion predicates has its origin in a difference of the causal structure in the verbal semantics. This paper shows that the data of Estonian contradicts this assumption.
This article deals with three interrelated phenoma in the information structure of German sentences: the focusing of negative markers, of finite verb forms and of the particles ja, doch, wohl and schon. Focusing of the finite verb is the most important marker of verum focus, as described by Höhle (1988). Focusing of particles can be an alternative means for similar purposes, while focusing of negation seems to be the contradictory opposite of verum focus. It is shown that negation- independently of its information structural status - can be interpreted on three distinct levels of sentence meaning: as an indicator of the non-facticity of a state of affairs, the non-truth of a proposition, or the non-desirability of a speech act. Focusing of the negative marker puts contrastive emphasis on the negative value assigned to sentence meaning on one of these levels. Ve rum focus can be interpreted on the same three levels: as a marker of contrastive emphasis on a positive value of facticity, truth or desirability. The particles ja, doch, wohl and schon refer to sufficient epistemic or interactional conditions for the assignment of a positive or negative value. By focusing such a particle, the speaker indicates that (s)he believes the assigned value to be well justified and insists on establishing it as common ground for further interaction.
In Spoken Egyptian, the form of a linguistic sign is restricted by rules of root structure and consonant compatibility as well as word-formation patterns. Hieroglyphic Egyptian, however, displays additional principles of sign formation. Iconicity is one of the crucial features of a part of its sign inventory. In this article, hieroglyphic iconicity will be investigated by means of a preliminary comparative typology originally developed for German Sign Language (Kutscher 2010). The authors argue that patterns found in Egyptian hieroglyphic sign formation are systematically comparable to patterns of German Sign Language (DGS). These patterns determine what types of lexical meaning can be inferred from iconic linguistic signs.
Vor dem Hintergrund einer neuen linguistischen Betrachtungsweise, die wissenschaftliche Präsentationen als eine eigenständige, komplexe, multimodale Textsorte auffasst, wird in diesem Beitrag zunächst der Aspekt der Multimodalität von Präsentationen fokussiert. Die analytische Beschäftigung mit wissenschaftlichen Präsentationen wird dann um erste Ergebnisse unserer Rezeptionsexperimente ergänzt, in denen unter anderem Erhebungen zur Wissensvermittlung unterschiedlicher wissenschaftlicher Präsentationen durchgeführt wurden.
This article discusses questions concerning the creation, annotation and sharing of spoken language corpora. We use the Hamburg Map Task Corpus (HAMATAC), a small corpus in which advanced learners of German were recorded solving a map task, as an example to illustrate our main points. We first give an overview of the corpus creation and annotation process including recording, metadata documentation, transcription and semi-automatic annotation of the data. We then discuss the manual annotation of disfluencies as an example case in which many of the typical and challenging problems for data reuse – in particular the reliability of interpretative annotations – are revealed.