Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (181)
- Article (166)
- Conference Proceeding (38)
- Review (5)
- Book (2)
- Other (2)
- Preprint (1)
Language
Keywords
- Deutsch (140)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (51)
- Konversationsanalyse (48)
- Interaktion (34)
- Semantik (23)
- Computerlinguistik (22)
- Kommunikation (21)
- Mehrsprachigkeit (21)
- Sprachpolitik (19)
- Englisch (18)
Publicationstate
- Postprint (395) (remove)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (176)
- Peer-Review (166)
- Peer-review (10)
- Verlags-Lektorat (5)
- Peer-Revied (2)
- (Verlags-)Lektorat (1)
- Review-Status-unbekannt (1)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (1)
Publisher
- Benjamins (52)
- Springer (36)
- Oxford University Press (19)
- Elsevier (14)
- Wilhelm Fink (14)
- Erich Schmidt (11)
- Buske (10)
- Winter (8)
- Equinox (6)
- Lang (6)
Morphophonological asymmetries in affixation concern systematic correlations between morphological properties of affixes (e.g. combination with bound versus free stems, position relative to stem (suffixes versus prefixes)) and their phonological properties (e.g. stress behaviour). The arguably most insightful approach to capturing relevant asymmetries invokes a notion of affix coherence, first introduced by Dixon in connection with his work on Yidiɲ, a nearly extinct language spoken in Northern Australia. This notion is based on a categorical division of affixes into ones that integrate into the phonological word of the stem and ones that do not. The integration of affixes is envisioned as being fully determined by phonological and morphological structure in a given language and verifiable by diagnostics relevant to phonological word domains (primarily the syllable and the foot structure). The assumption of two types of prosodic domains characterized by integrated versus non-integrated affixes is manifest in consistent asymmetries that pertain to morphophonological, phonological, and phonetic rules. This consistency constitutes compelling evidence for the structure-based analysis of the impact of various affixes on derived words, as opposed to alternative approaches to capturing these effects by associating affixes with diacritics (morpheme versus word boundary, class 1 versus class 2, stratum 1 versus stratum 2). The present entry aims to demonstrate, mostly on the basis of data from Germanic languages, the breadth of the empirical evidence in support of a fundamental role of affix coherence. Moreover, it aims to draw attention to the various implications of affix coherence for modeling relevant generalizations, in particular the necessary reference to a level of phonological representation characterized by a specific degree of abstractness (‘phonemic’).
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.
This paper discusses a theoretical and empirical approach to language fixedness that we have developed at the Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (‘Institute for German Language’) in Mannheim in the project Usuelle Worterbindungen(UWV) over the last decade. The analysis described is based on the Deutsches Referenzkorpus (‘German Reference Corpus’; DeReKo) which is located at the IDS. The corpus analysis tool used for accessing the corpus data is COSMAS II (CII) and – for statistical analysis – the IDS collocation analysis tool (Belica, 1995; CA). For detecting lexical patterns and describing their semantic and pragmatic nature we use the tool lexpan (or ‘Lexical Pattern Analyzer’) that was developed in our project. We discuss a new corpus-driven pattern dictionary that is relevant not only to the field of phraseology, but also to usage-based linguistics and lexicography as a whole.
This article introduces the topic of ‘‘Multilingual language resources and interoperability’’. We start with a taxonomy and parameters for classifying language resources. Later we provide examples and issues of interoperatability, and resource architectures to solve such issues. Finally we discuss aspects of linguistic formalisms and interoperability.
Drawing on naturalistic video and audio recordings of international meetings, and within the framework of conversation analysis, ethnomethodology and interactional linguistics, this chapter studies how multilingual resources are mobilized in social interactions among professionals, how available linguistic and embodied resources are identified and used by the participants, which solutions are locally elaborated by them when they are confronted with various languages spoken but not shared among them, and which definition of multilingualism they adopt for all practical purposes. Focusing on the multilingual solutions emically elaborated in international professional meetings, we show that the participants orient to a double principle: on the one hand, they orient to the progressivity of the interaction, adopting all the possible resources that enable them to go on within the current activity; on the other hand, they orient to the intersubjectivity of the interaction, treating, preventing and repairing possible troubles and problems of understanding. Specific multilingual solutions can be adopted to keep this difficult balance between progressivity and intersubjectivity; they vary according to the settings, the competences at hand, the linguistic and embodied resources locally defined by the participants as publicly available, the multilingual resources treated as totally or partially shared, as transparent or opaque, and as needing repair or not. The paper begins by sketching the analytical framework, including the methodology and the data collected; it then presents some general findings, before offering an analysis of various ways in which participants keep the balance between progressivity and intersubjectivity in different multilingual interactional contexts.
This chapter introduces readers to the context and concept of this volume. It starts by providing an historical overview of languages and multilingualism in Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, highlighting the 100th anniversary of statehood which the three Baltic states are celebrating in 2018. Then, the chapter briefly presents important strands of research on multilingualism in the region throughout the past decades; in particular, questions about language policies and the status of the national languages (Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian) and Russian. It also touches on debates about languages in education and the roles of other languages such as the regional languages of Latgalian and Võro and the changing roles of international languages such as English and German. The chapter concludes by providing short summaries of the contributions to this book.
This paper analyses paramedic emergency interaction as multimodal multiactivity. Based on a corpus of video-recordings of emergency drills performed by professional paramedics during advanced training, the focus is on paramedics’ participation in multiple joint projects which become simultaneously relevant. Simultaneity and fast succession of multiactivity does not only characterise work on the team level, but also the work profile of the individual paramedic. Participants have to coordinate their own participation in more than one joint project intrapersonally. In the data studied, three patterns of allocating multimodal resources stood out as routine ways of coordinating participation in two simultaneous projects intrapersonally:
1. Talk and hearing vs. manual action monitored by gaze,
2. Talk and hearing vs. gazing (and pointing),
3. Manual action vs. gaze (and talk and hearing).
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.