Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (65)
- Article (39)
- Other (17)
- Book (15)
- Conference Proceeding (10)
- Review (7)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Part of Periodical (2)
Language
- German (124)
- English (30)
- Portuguese (2)
- Russian (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (157) (remove)
Keywords
- Grammatik (157) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (157) (remove)
Reviewstate
Publisher
Der Datensatz enthält 10.113 Korpusbelege für Konstruktionen, in denen ein Substantiv mit einem dass-Satz oder einem zu-Infinitiv auftritt (das Versprechen, dass man sich irgendwann wiedersieht vs. das Versprechen, sich irgendwann wiederzusehen).
Die Daten wurden erhoben aus:
1. dem Korpusgrammatik-Untersuchungskorpus (Bubenhofer et al. 2014), basierend auf dem Deutschen Referenzkorpus DeReKo (Kupietz et al. 2010, 2018), Release 2017-II.
2. dem Subkorpus “Forum” des DECOW16B-Webkorpus (Schäfer & Bildhauer 2012).
Deutsch als Fremdsprache und die Grammatik des Deutschen. Über die Fruchtbarkeit des fremden Blicks
(2000)
The present paper examines the relationship between pragmatics, semantics and grammar as subdisciplines of linguistics from three different perspectives. The first section gives a historical survey of their development during the 20th century and classifies linguistic schools according to their interest in different fields of research. The second part presents a systematic model of the field of objects to be investigated by linguistics, aiming at a more precise delimitation of its subdisciplines. Finally, in the third section, the division of labour between pragmatics, semantics and grammar is discussed in the light of the concrete example of verb valence.
Most authors agree that modal particles - a dass of function words widely considered characteristic of Modem German - cannot receive prosodic stress, though the reasons for this restriction have not yet been satisfactorily explained. This paper argues that unstressability follows from the general contribution of modal particles to compositional utterance meaning, which requires them to take scope over focus-background structures. Form and function of modal particle meanings are modelled and illustrated for five representative examples - the particles wohl, ja, eigentlich, eben and halt. It is argued that these as well as other particles, whenever they occur under prosodic stress, cannot preserve the meaning nor the syntactic behaviour of modal particles. All instances of stressed particles in German must therefore be categorized in other functional classes.
Grammatik im WWW
(1999)
Der vorliegende Beitrag setzt an bei den Informationsbedürfnissen und -defiziten verschiedener Typen von Grammatiknutzern und diskutiert an mehreren Beispielen von online zugänglichen Grammatiken Mehrwerte hypermedialer Grammatiken bei der Optimierung der Wissensvermittlung an heterogene Adressatengruppen. Gleichzeitig wird das Projekt GRAMMIS (elektronisches grammatisches Informationssystem) vorgestellt und Veränderungen gegenüber der Pilotphase beschrieben und begründet.
Klassen von Komplementen
(1997)
Vorwort
(2006)
Vorwort
(2006)
The article aims to examine grammatical features and pragmatic concerns of communicating in the Sciences. In the research of certain languages, it became common to explaingrammatical features such as the usage of passive voice and nominal structures by communication requirements such as objectivity and precision. With the assumption that communication in Science is designed to help gain and spread new insight, the authors tried to integrateseveral approaches to pragmatic and grammatical features of communication. By discussing therelationship between the grammar of certain languages and of the corresponding commonlanguage, the article also places the subject of communication in the Sciences in the discipline oflanguage Variation.
Schegloff (1996) has argued that grammars are “positionally-sensitive”, implying that the situated use and understanding of linguistic formats depends on their sequential position. Analyzing the German format Kannst du X? (corresponding to English Can you X?) based on 82 instances from a large corpus of talk-in-interaction (FOLK), this paper shows how different action-ascriptions to turns using the same format depend on various orders of context. We show that not only sequential position, but also epistemic status, interactional histories, multimodal conduct, and linguistic devices co-occurring in the same turn are decisive for the action implemented by the format. The range of actions performed with Kannst du X? and their close interpretive interrelationship suggest that they should not be viewed as a fixed inventory of context-dependent interpretations of the format. Rather, the format provides for a root-interpretation that can be adapted to local contextual contingencies, yielding situated action-ascriptions that depend on constraints created by contexts of use.