Refine
Year of publication
- 2022 (357) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (196)
- Article (74)
- Book (26)
- Conference Proceeding (20)
- Other (13)
- Review (13)
- Part of Periodical (10)
- Doctoral Thesis (3)
- Preprint (2)
Language
- German (205)
- English (147)
- French (4)
- Multiple languages (1)
Keywords
- Deutsch (122)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (86)
- Wörterbuch (39)
- Kommunikation (31)
- Neologismus (29)
- Sprachgebrauch (27)
- Nationalsozialismus (26)
- Lexikografie (25)
- COVID-19 (24)
- Interaktion (22)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (247)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (90)
- Postprint (35)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
- Ahead of Print (1)
Reviewstate
Publisher
- IDS-Verlag (81)
- de Gruyter (73)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (36)
- V&R unipress (19)
- Wilhelm Fink (15)
- European Language Resources Association (ELRA) (9)
- Peter Lang (9)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (8)
- Winter (7)
- Cambridge University Press (5)
This paper consists of a short analysis of the sources and the treatment of the legal lexicon in the first dictionary published by the Spanish Royal Academy (1726–1739), followed by a longer commentary on the representation and the treatment of the concept of judge, in which the reflection of the extralinguistic factors in the definitions stands in focus. The results highlight the relevance of the legal context of that era for the treatment of the lexicon related to the legal domain, but they also demonstrate the pattern in which the lexicographic data displays peculiarities of legal matters.
Sometimes in interaction, a speaker articulates an overt interpretation of prior talk. Such moments have been studied as involving the repair of a problem with the other’s talk or as formulating an understanding of the matter at hand. Stepping back from the established notions of formulations and repair, we examine the variety of actions speakers do with the practice of offering an interpretation, and the order within this domain. Results show half a dozen usage types of interpretations in mundane interaction. These form a largely continuous territory of action, with recognizably distinct usage types as well as cases falling between these (proto)typical uses. We locate order in the domain of interpretations using the method of semantic maps and show that, contrary to earlier assumptions in the literature, interpretations that formulate an understanding of the matter at hand are actually quite pervasive in ordinary talk. These findings contribute to research on action formation and advance our understanding of understanding in interaction. Data are video- and audio-recordings of mundane social interaction in the German language from a variety of settings.
We examine moments in social interaction in which a person formulates what another thinks or believes. Such formulations of belief constitute a practice with specifiable contexts and consequences. Belief formulations treat aspects of the other person's prior conduct as accountable on the basis that it provided a new angle on a topic, or otherwise made a surprising contribution within an ongoing course of actions. The practice of belief formulations subjectivizes the content that the other articulated and thereby topicalizes it, mobilizing commitment to that position, an account, or further elaboration. We describe how the practice can be put to work in different activity contexts: sometimes it is designed to undermine the other's position as a subjective 'mere belief', at other times it serves to mobilize further topic talk. Throughout, belief formulations show themselves to be a method by which we get to know ourselves and each other as mental agents.
Wir stellen eine empirische Studie vor, die der Frage nachgeht, ob und in welchem Ausmaß Wörterbücher und andere lexikographische Ressourcen die Ergebnisse von Textüberarbeitungen verbessern. Studierende wurden in unserer Studie gebeten, zwei Texte zu optimieren und waren dabei zufällig in drei unterschiedliche Versuchsbedingungen eingeteilt: 1. ein Ausgangstext ohne Hinweise auf potenzielle Fehler im Text, 2. ein Ausgangstext, bei dem problematische Stellen im Text hervorgehoben waren und 3. ein Ausgangstext mit hervorgehobenen Problemstellen zusammen mit lexikographischen Ressourcen, die zur Lösung der spezifischen Probleme verwendet werden konnten. Wir fanden heraus, dass die Teilnehmer*innen der dritten Gruppe die meisten Probleme korrigierten und die wenigsten semantischen Verzerrungen während der Überarbeitung einführten. Außerdem waren sie am effizientesten (gemessen in verbesserten Textabschnitten pro Zeit). Wir berichten in dieser Fallstudie ausführlich vom Versuchsaufbau, der methodischen Durchführung der Studie und eventuellen Limitationen unserer Ergebnisse.
Dictionaries have been part and parcel of literate societies for many centuries. They assist in communication, particularly across different languages, to aid in understanding, creating, and translating texts. Communication problems arise whenever a native speaker of one language comes into contact with a speaker of another language. At the same time, English has established itself as a lingua franca of international communication. This marked tendency gives lexicography of English a particular significance, as English dictionaries are used intensively and extensively by huge numbers of people worldwide.
Based on the privative derivational suffix -los, we test statements found in the literature on word formation using a – at least in this field – novel empirical basis: a list of affective-emotional ratings of base nouns and associated -los derivations. In addition to a frequency analysis based on the German Reference Corpus, we show that, in general, emotional polarity (so-called valence, positive vs. negative emotions) is reversed by suffixation with -los. This change is stronger for more polarized base nouns. The perceived intensity of emotion (so-called arousal) is generally lower for -los derivations than for base nouns. Finally, to capture the results theoretically, we propose a prototypical -los construction in the framework of Construction Morphology.
Wenn alle Forschungsfragen gestellt, alle Hypothesen formuliert, alle Korpora kompiliert und alle Daten von Proband*innen gesammelt wurden, befinden Sie sich auf einer der letzten Etappen Ihrer linguistischen Studie: der Analyse der Daten. In diesem Kapitel werden Sie einige Werkzeuge kennenlernen, die Sie dabei unterstützen können. Hier nehmen wir an, dass Sie in irgendeiner Form eine quantitative statistische Auswertung vornehmen möchten, denn für qualitative Analysen sind die Werkzeuge, die wir Ihnen vorstellen werden, weniger bis gar nicht geeignet.