Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (419)
- Part of a Book (336)
- Conference Proceeding (125)
- Book (83)
- Other (66)
- Working Paper (22)
- Report (10)
- Part of Periodical (9)
- Review (9)
- Preprint (7)
Language
Has Fulltext
- yes (1092) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (1092) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (367)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (254)
- Gesprochene Sprache (76)
- Sprachgebrauch (74)
- Interaktion (71)
- Grammatik (66)
- Konversationsanalyse (59)
- Neologismus (55)
- Kommunikation (51)
- COVID-19 (47)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (1092) (remove)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (478)
- Peer-Review (454)
- Verlags-Lektorat (23)
- Peer-review (18)
- Qualifikationsarbeit (Dissertation, Habilitationsschrift) (8)
- Verlagslektorat (4)
- Review-Status-unbekannt (3)
- (Verlags)Lektorat (1)
- Abschlussarbeit (Bachelor, Master, Diplom, Magister) (Bachelor, Master, Diss.) (1)
- Peer-Revied (1)
Publisher
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (125)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (120)
- de Gruyter (91)
- IDS-Verlag (42)
- De Gruyter (39)
- Heidelberg University Publishing (34)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (28)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (27)
- Zenodo (24)
- V&R unipress (22)
This presentation deals with collaborative turn-sequences (Lerner 2004), a syntactically coherent unit of talk that is jointly formulated by at least two speakers, in Czech and German everyday conversations. Based on conversation analysis (e.g., Schegloff 2007) and a multimodal approach to social interaction (e.g., Deppermann/Streeck 2018), we aim at comparing recurrent patterns and action types within co-constructional sequences in both languages. The practice of co-constructing turns-at-talk has been described for typologically different languages, especially for English (e.g., Lerner 1996, 2004), but also for languages such as Japanese (Hayashi 2003) or Finnish (Helasvuo 2004). For German, various forms and functions of co-constructions have already been investigated (e.g., Brenning 2015); for Czech, a detailed, interactionally based description is still pending (but see some initial observations in, e.g., Hoffmannová/Homoláč/Mrázková (eds.) 2019). Although the existence of co-constructions in different languages points to a cross-linguistic conversational practice, few explicitly comparative studies exist (see, e.g., Lerner/Takagi 1999, for English and Japanese). The language pair Czech-German has mainly been studied with respect to language contact and without specifically considering spoken language or complex conversational sequences (e.g., Nekula/Šichová/Valdrová 2013). Therefore, our second aim is to sketch out a first comparison of co-constructional sequences in German and Czech, thereby contributing to the growing field of comparative and cross-linguistic studies within conversation analysis (e.g., Betz et al. (eds.) 2021; Dingemanse/Enfield 2015; Sidnell (ed.) 2009). More specifically, we will present three main sequential patterns of co-constructional sequences, focusing on the type of action a second speaker carries out by completing a first speaker’s possibly incomplete turn-at-talk, and on how the initial speaker then responds to
this suggested completion (Lerner 2004). Excerpts from video recordings of Czech and German ordinary conversations will illustrate these recurrent co-constructional sequence types, i.e., offering help during word searches (see example 1 above), displaying understanding, or claiming independent knowledge. The third objective of this paper is to underline the participants’ orientation to similar interactional problems, solved by specific syntactic and/or lexical formats in Czech and German. Considering the more recent focus on the embodied dimension of co-constructional practices (e.g., Dressel 2020), we will also investigate the multimodal formatting of a started utterance as more or less “permeable” (Lerner 1996) for co-participant completion, the participants’ mutual embodied orientation, and possible embodied responses to others’ turn-completions (such as head nods or eyebrow flashes, cf. De Stefani 2021). More generally, this contribution reflects on the possibilities and challenges of a cross-linguistic comparison of complex multimodal sequences.
Redeeinleiter sind sprachliche Ausdrücke unterschiedlicher Wortarten, die relativ zur Redewiedergabe in Voran-, Mittel- oder Nachstellung stehen und eine direkte oder indirekte Redewiedergabe einleiten. Dadurch sind Redeeinleiter sehr vielfältig, womit sie sich als Untersuchungsgegenstand einer Analyse zur lexikalischen Vielfalt von Teilwortschätzen eignen.
Als Datengrundlage der vorliegenden Untersuchung dienen die manuell annotierten direkten und indirekten Redeeinleiter des Redewiedergabe-Korpus. Dieses setzt sich aus fiktionalen und nicht-fiktionalen Textausschnitten, die zwischen 1840–1920 veröffentlicht wurden, zusammen. Ziel der Analyse ist es, zu ermitteln, wie sich der Teilwortschatz der direkten und der der indirekten Redeeinleiter in ihrer lexikalischen Vielfalt voneinander unterscheiden und wie diese Unterschiede zu begründen sind. Dafür wird ein Set an quantitativen Methoden erarbeitet mit dem die lexikalische Vielfalt von Teilwortschätzen bestimmt werden kann und das in zukünftigen Untersuchungen zur lexikalischen Vielfalt als Standardrepertoire herangezogen werden kann.
In a previous study, Aceves and Evans present a large-scale quantitative information-theoretic analysis of parallel corpus data in ~1,000 languages to show that there are apparently strong associations between the way languages encode information into words and patterns of communication, e.g. the configuration of semantic information. During the peer review process, one reviewer raised the question of the extent to which the presented results depend on different corpus sizes (see the Peer Review File). This is a very important question given that most, if not all, of the quantities associated with word frequency distributions vary systematically with corpus size. While Aceves and Evans claim that corpus size does not affect the results presented, I challenge this view by presenting reanalyses of the data that clearly suggest that it does.
Datensatz Schwache Maskulina
(2023)
Der Datensatz enthält eine Sammlung von 1.156 Substantiven (mit wenigen Ausnahmen Maskulina), die sich im Korpusgrammatik-Untersuchungskorpus (Bubenhofer et al. 2014), basierend auf dem Deutschen Referenzkorpus DeReKo (Kupietz et al. 2010, 2018), Release 2017-II, unmittelbar nach einem Beleg für die Akkusativ- oder Dativform des unbestimmten Artikels ( einen / einem ) mindestens einmal mit der “schwachen” Endung -(e)n belegen lassen (z.B. einen Aktivisten , einem Autoren ). Einzelheiten zur Datenerhebung in Weber & Hansen (2023).
Besides English, Afrikaans is considered “the [Germanic] language which deviates grammatically the farthest from the others” (Harbert 2007: 17). But how exactly do we measure “grammatical deviation”, and how deviant is Afrikaans really if we compare it not just to other standard languages but also to non-standard varieties? The present contribution aims to address those questions combining functional-typological and dialectometric perspectives. We first select data for 28 Germanic varieties showing vastly different speaker numbers, grades of standardisation and amounts of language contact. Based on 48 (micro)typological variables from syntax, morphology and phonology, we perform cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling and present ways of visualizing and interpreting the results. Inter alia, the analyses show a major divide between Continental West Germanic and North Germanic (as might be expected) and they also identify a number of outliers, including English and pidgin and creole languages such as Russenorsk or Rabaul Creole German. Afrikaans appears to cluster with the other West Germanic languages rather than the outliers. Within West Germanic, however, it does indeed emerge as rather deviant and, according to our metric, it is, for example, typologically closer to other high-contact varieties such as Yiddish than it is to Dutch.