Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (10)
- Part of a Book (6)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Other (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (19)
Keywords
- Adjektiv (19) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (19) (remove)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (15)
- Peer-Review (4)
Publisher
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (3)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (2)
- Stauffenburg (2)
- de Gruyter (2)
- EACL (1)
- Heidelberg University Publishing (1)
- Heliand (1)
- Hogrefe (1)
- Ministerstvo prosveščenija RSFSR; Omskij gosudarstvenny pedagogičeskij institut imeni A. M. Gor´kogo (1)
- Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (1)
In German there are about twenty-five elements (like gemäß, nahe, voll) that seem to be used as a preposition along with their use as an adjective. In former approaches the preposition is interpreted as the product of grammaticalizing (and/or reanalyzing) the adjective. It is argued that the two criteria these approaches rely on, namely change of linear position and change of case government, are insufficient. In this paper, seven criteria for distinguishing adjectives form prepositions in German are put forward. What is most important is that these criteria have to be evaluated on the token level as well as on the level of type and word class/syntactic category. It can be shown that the individual ‘adjective-prepositions' as types possess a specific mixture of adjective-like and preposition-like features. On the token level, occurring as part of a postnominal restrictive attribute is indicative for preposition-like status in German. The comparison of German with English and Italian adjective-prepositions (like near, far, due and vicino, lontano) reveals a lot of differences, which counts as evidence for the language-specific nature of word classes. Nevertheless, Lehmanns functional-typological approach uncovers a fundamental functional similarity between complement governing adjectives and prepositions: the primary function of the phrases, i.e., adjective/preposition + complement, is to modify a nominal or a verbal concept, respectively. This insight explains why adjective-prepositions can be found cross-linguistically. The question whether we should propose one type or two types for gemäß and its cognates is of minor importance only.
Bedeutung und Standardinterpretation von Äußerungen mit negierten negativ-bewertenden Adjektiven
(2009)
Thema dieses Beitrags ist der Unterschied zwischen der Bedeutung und der Standard- oder „Default“-Interpretation von Äußerungen mit negierten lexikalischen bzw. un-präfigierten Antonymen graduierbarer Adjektive wie intelligent (z.B. X ist nicht dumm vs. X ist nicht unintelligent). Ausgehend von der Darstellung der Bedeutung und der Standardinterpretation der entsprechenden nicht-negierten Formen dieser Äußerungen (z.B. X ist dumm vs. X ist unintelligent) wird zunächst gezeigt, dass Äußerungen wie X ist nicht dumm und X ist nicht unintelligent sich im Hinblick auf das, was mit ihnen kodiert ist, unterscheiden: Äußerungen mit negierten lexikalischen Antonymen (X ist nicht dumm) umfassen sowohl den positiven als auch den neutralen Mittelbereich der jeweils relevanten Skala, solche mit negierten un-präfigierten Antonymen (X ist nicht unintelligent) hingegen nur den positiven Bereich. Die beiden Typen von Äußerungen unterscheiden sich aber auch im Hinblick auf ihre Standardinterpretation: Obwohl sie beide überlicherweise als ‚eher X‘ oder ‚ziemlich X‘ (z.B. ‚eher intelligent‘ oder ‚ziemlich intelligent‘) interpretiert werden, wird die mit den negierten, un-präfigierten Formen ausgedrückte Bewertung von Muttersprachlern (des Deutschen) häufig als positiver eingeschätzt als die Bewertung, die mit den negierten nicht-abgeleiteten Formen ausgedrückt wird.
We compare several different corpus- based and lexicon-based methods for the scalar ordering of adjectives. Among them, we examine for the first time a low- resource approach based on distinctive- collexeme analysis that just requires a small predefined set of adverbial modifiers. While previous work on adjective intensity mostly assumes one single scale for all adjectives, we group adjectives into different scales which is more faithful to human perception. We also apply the methods to both polar and non-polar adjectives, showing that not all methods are equally suitable for both types of adjectives.
Identity effects in phonology are deviations from regular phonological form (i.e. canonical patterns) which are due to the relatedness between words. More specifically, identity effects are those deviations which have the function to enhance similarity in the surface phonological form of morphologically related words. In rule-based generative phonology the effects in question are described by means of the cycle. For example, the stress on the second syllable in cond[ɛ]nsation as opposed to the stresslessness of the second syllable in comp[ǝ]nsation is described by applying the stress rules initially to the sterns thereby yielding condénse and cómpensàte. Subsequently the stress rules are reapplied to the affixed words with the initial stress assignment (i.e. stress on the second syllable in condense, but not in compensate) leaving its mark in the output form (cf. Chomsky and Halle 1968). A second example are words like lie[p]los 'unloving' in German, which shows the effects of neutralization in coda position (i.e. only voiceless obstruents may occur in coda position) even though the obstruent should 'regularly' be syllabified in head position (i.e. bl is a wellformed syllable head in German). Here the stern is syllabified on an initial cycle, obstruent devoicing applies (i.e. lie[p]) and this structure is left intact when affixation applies (i.e. lie[p ]Ios ) (cf. Hall 1992). As a result the stern of lie[p]los is identical to the base lie[p].