Refine
Year of publication
- 2017 (163) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (70)
- Part of a Book (35)
- Conference Proceeding (35)
- Book (10)
- Working Paper (5)
- Other (3)
- Part of Periodical (2)
- Report (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Keywords
- Deutsch (52)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (42)
- Gesprochene Sprache (16)
- Corpus linguistics (11)
- Computerunterstützte Lexikographie (7)
- Diskursmarker (7)
- Computerlinguistik (6)
- Corpus technology (6)
- Interaktionsanalyse (6)
- Texttechnologie (6)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (163) (remove)
Reviewstate
Publisher
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (43)
- de Gruyter (19)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (10)
- Lexical Computing CZ s.r.o. (5)
- The Association for Computational Linguistics (5)
- Heidelberg University Publishing (4)
- Narr (4)
- Synchron (4)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (3)
- Narr Francke Attempto (3)
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.
In the first volume of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Gries (2005. Null-hypothesis significance testing of word frequencies: A follow-up on Kilgarriff. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2). doi:10.1515/ cllt.2005.1.2.277. http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cllt.2005.1.issue-2/cllt.2005. 1.2.277/cllt.2005.1.2.277.xml: 285) asked whether corpus linguists should abandon null-hypothesis significance testing. In this paper, I want to revive this discussion by defending the argument that the assumptions that allow inferences about a given population – in this case about the studied languages – based on results observed in a sample – in this case a collection of naturally occurring language data – are not fulfilled. As a consequence, corpus linguists should indeed abandon null-hypothesis significance testing.
Alles verstehen heißt alles verzeihen ist ein Satz, der im Deutschen den Charakter eines Spruchs, eines geflügelten Wortes angenommen hat, und der wahrscheinlich auf einem Zitat aus „Corinne ou l‘Italie“ von Madame de Staël (1807) (tout) comprendre c‘est (tout) pardonner basiert. Dieser Satz wurde ins Deutsche übersetzt und als Alles verstehen heißt alles verzeihen tradiert. Die Form eines Spruchs, eines geflügelten Wortes ist im Allgemeinen sehr konstant. Die Tendenz zur grammatischen Variation ist auch dann gering, wenn sie nach gängigen grammatischen Regeln möglich wäre.
Am Anfang ist das Wort
(2017)
Analepses with topic-drop are frequent structures in German interaction. While hitherto the focus on analepses was a rather syntactic one, this paper deals with analeptic structures from a semantic perspective. It particularly concentrates on the semantic relations between the referents of the analepses and the prior interactional context. This analysis shows that even for rather simple analepses which just omit a constituent from the prior utterance, conceptual processes are more decisive for its interpretation than syntactic features of the antecedent constituents. This is even more the case for complex analepses that are only indirectly linked to the prior context, and for the interpretation of which hearers need to draw inferences. The paper argues that theoretical approaches like Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics can profit from adopting a semantic and conceptual perspective for the interpretation of interactional structures.