Refine
Year of publication
- 2011 (246) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (114)
- Article (68)
- Conference Proceeding (26)
- Book (17)
- Other (6)
- Part of Periodical (5)
- Contribution to a Periodical (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Review (2)
- Bachelor Thesis (1)
Language
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (246) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (135)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (28)
- Grammatik (18)
- Computerlinguistik (17)
- Computerunterstützte Lexikographie (14)
- Konversationsanalyse (14)
- Online-Wörterbuch (13)
- Wörterbuch (13)
- Sprachvariante (12)
- Englisch (11)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (104)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (23)
- Postprint (10)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
- Erstveröffentlichung (1)
- Preprint (1)
Reviewstate
Publisher
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (38)
- Narr (29)
- de Gruyter (29)
- Lang (11)
- Springer (6)
- Trojina, Institute for Applied Slovene Studies (5)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (5)
- De Gruyter (3)
- Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (3)
- Universität Hamburg (3)
Das Thema "Konnektoren" stößt in letzter Zeit sowohl in funktionalen als auch in formalen Arbeiten auf großes Interesse. Das Hauptanliegen des vorliegenden Bandes besteht aus dem Bemühen, einen weiten Blickwinkel anzubieten - sowohl hinsichtlich des theoretischen Rahmens, in dem die einzelnen Beiträge entstanden sind, als auch der Auswahl der Schwerpunkte: Er vereint breit angelegte theoretische Beiträge mit solchen, die sich vorwiegend mit einer semantischen Gruppe von Konnektoren auseinandersetzen. Den Schwerpunkt bilden hierbei Kausalkonnektoren. Darüber hinaus widmen sich einzelne Beiträge den Temporalkonnektoren und Adverbkonnektoren aus verschiedenen Perspektiven oder untersuchen Konnektoren sprachvergleichend in unterschiedlichen Kontexten.
Dabei zielen alle Beiträge trotz verschiedenartiger Theorieansätze darauf ab, verschiedene Klassen von Konnektoren in einer Weise zu analysieren, die in einer operationalisierbaren Methode etwa im DaF-Bereich angewendet werden.
Das Werk versteht sich als eine Darstellung der wichtigsten syntaktischen, prosodischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Eigenschaften kausaler und konditionaler Konnektoren des gesprochenen Deutsch.
Die Untersuchung formuliert notwendige theoretische Grundlagen und zeigt die komplexe Interaktion mehrerer Faktoren, die sich auf die Interpretation einer Äußerung auswirken. Empirische Daten belegen, dass die kontextuelle und pragmatische Interpretation der untersuchten Relationen stark mit ihren syntaktischen und prosodischen Mustern korreliert. Jedoch handelt es sich nicht um eine Eins-zu-eins-Beziehung, denn gleiche Lesarten können von kausalen und konditionalen Relationen unterschiedlich markiert sein. Anhand der Ergebnisse wird das Verhältnis zwischen Konditionalität und Kausalität diskutiert.
Im Beitrag werden die Methodologie und die Ziele eines Projekts vorgestellt, das anstrebt, auf der Grundlage eines breiten Korpus von Texten aus allen Ländern und Regionen des zusammenhängenden deutschen Sprachgebiets die Variation in der Grammatik der geschriebenen deutschen Standardsprache zu erfassen, in einem Handbuch zu dokumentieren und damit eine Basis sowohl für Grammatiken als auch für weitergehende grammatische Untersuchungen zu schaffen. Nach einleitenden Bemerkungen zum Projekt und zu der Frage, in welcher Relation die geplante „Variantengrammatik des Standarddeutschen“ zum bereits erhältlichen „Variantenwörterbuch des Deutschen“ von Ammon et al. (2004) steht, folgt ein Forschungsüberblick zur grammatischen Variation in der Standardsprache. Dann werden Beispiele für grammatische Variabilität in verschiedenen Phänomenbereichen gegeben, und es wird anhand von zwei Fallbeispielen gezeigt, wie eine grammatische Beschreibung dieser Phänomene aussehen kann. Um Angaben zur arealen Distribution grammatischer Varianten machen zu können, wird den Analysen ein Korpus zugrunde gelegt, das sich auf den geschriebenen Standard beschränkt und darunter den Sprachgebrauch in der Presse fasst. Das Korpus, das als Basis für die Erstellung der geplanten Variantengrammatik dient, wird im Beitrag kurz vorgestellt, außerdem wird erläutert, welche Zielsetzungen mit einer solchen Grammatik verbunden sind.
This study explores the interdependence of qualitative and quantitative analysis in articulating empirically plausible and theoretically coherent generalizations about grammatical structure. I will show that the use of large electronic corpora is indispensable to the grammarian's work, serving as a rich source of semantic and contextual information, which turns out to be crucial in categorizing and explaining grammatical forms. These general concerns are illustrated by the patterns of use of Czech relative clauses (RC) with the non-declinable relativizer co, by taking a set of existing claims about these RCs and testing their accuracy on corpus material. The relevant analytic categories revolve around the referential type of the relativized noun, the interaction between relativization and deixis, and the semantic relationship between the relativized noun and the proposition expressed by the RC. The analysis demonstrates that some of the existing claims are fully invalid in the face of regularly attested semantic distinctions, while others are more or less on the right track but often not comprehensive or precise enough to capture the full richness of the facts. 1
Conversation is usually considered to be grammatically simple, while academic writing is often claimed to be structurally complex, associated primarily with a greater use of dependent clauses. Our goal in the present paper is to challenge these stereotypes, based on the results of large-scale corpus investigations. We argue that both conversation and professional academic writing are grammatically complex but that their complexities are dramatically different. Surprisingly, the traditional view that complexity is realized through extensive clausal embedding leads to the conclusion that conversation is more complex than academic writing. In contrast, written academic discourse is actually much more ‘compressed’ than elaborated, and the complexities of academic writing are realized mostly as phrasal embedding rather than embedded clauses.
Der vorliegende Beitrag hat zum Ziel, drei der wichtigsten pragmatischen Aspekte der Sprechgattung Ermahnung im Deutschen und im Ukrainischen einer ausführlichen Analyse zu unterziehen, wobei es vor allem um die folgenden Aspekte geht:
- das kommunikative Ziel des Sprechers
- das Modell des Sprechers
- das Modell des Empfängers.
Um festzustellen, wie die Sprecher selbst Ermahnungen identifizieren und verwenden, wurde ein assoziatives Experiment unter 120 deutschen Germanistikstudenten an der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (Deutschland) und 120 Ukrainistikstudenten an der Nationalen Iwan-Franko Universität Lwiw (Ukraine) durchgeführt. Es ist vor allem der Versuch unternommen worden, das kommunikative Ziel des Sprechers sowie Modelle des Sprechers und des Empfängers in unterschiedlichen Situationen zu bestimmen, in denen Ermahnungen realisiert werden.
This article looks at Latgalian from a perspective of a classification of languages. It starts by discussing relevant terms relating to sociolinguistic language types. It argues that Latgalian and its speakers show considerable similarities with many languages in Europe which are considered to be regional languages – hence, also Latgalian should be classified as such. In a second part, the article uses sociolinguistic data to indicate that the perceptions of speakers confirm this classification. Therefore, Latgalian should also officially be treated with the respect that other regional languages in Europe enjoy.
In der akademischen Diskussion zum Global English hat sich seit den 1980er Jahren ein Modell etabliert, das die Staaten, in denen Englisch gesprochen wird, idealtypisch in drei Kreise einteilt: Den Inneren Kreis, in dem Englisch wichtigste Sprache der Gesellschaft sowie L1 eines Großteils der Bevölkerung ist, den Äußeren Kreis, wo Englisch L2 und eine wichtige Sprache unter mehreren ist, sowie den Erweiterten oder Expandierenden Kreis, in dem Englisch als Fremdsprache und als Lingua Franca dominiert (Kachru, 1985). Dieser Beitrag zeigt anhand einer Bestandsaufnahme gesellschaftlicher Funktionen des Deutschen weltweit, dass dieses Modell auch auf das Deutsche übertragen werden kann. Allerdings unterscheidet sich das Deutsche in einigen erheblichen Aspekten vom Englischen: Zum Inneren Kreis gehören die Länder des deutschsprachigen Kerngebietes, zum Äußeren Kreis Länder, in denen Deutsch anerkannte Minderheitensprache ist, und zum Erweiterten (oder im Falle des Deutschen eher Bröckelnden) Kreis Länder, in denen es einzelne deutsche Sprachinseln oder eine deutschsprachige Diaspora gibt, wobei letztere auch erst in jüngster Zeit entstanden sein kann. Schließlich diskutiert der Aufsatz die Position des Baltikums in diesem Modell.
An interactive, dynamic electronic dictionary aimed at text production should guide the user in innovative ways, especially in respect of difficult, complicated or confusing issues. This paper proposes a design for bilingual dictionaries intended to guide users in text production; we focus on complex phenomena of the interaction between lexis and grammar. It will be argued that a dictionary aimed at guiding the user in lexical selection should implement a type of “decision algorithm”. In addition, it should flag incorrect solutions and should warn against possible wrong generalisations of (foreign) language learners. Our proposals will be illustrated with examples from several languages, as the design principles are generally applicable. The copulative construction which is regarded as the most complicated grammatical structure in Northern Sotho will be analyzed in more detail and presented as a case in point.
Between classical symbolic word sense disambiguation (wsd) using explicit deep semantic representations of sentences and texts and statistical wsd using word co-occurrence information, there is a recent tendency towards mediating methods. Similar to so-called lightweight semantics (Marek, 2009) we suggest to only make sparse use of semantic information. We describe an approximation model based upon flat underspecified discourse representation structures (FUDRSs, cf. Eberle, 2004) that weighs knowledge about context structure, lexical semantic restrictions and interpretation preferences. We give a catalogue of guidelines for human annotation of texts by corresponding indicators. Using this, the reliability of an analysis tool that implements the model can be tested with respect to annotation precision and disambiguation prediction and how both can be improved by bootstrapping the knowledge of the system using corpus information. For the balanced test corpus considered the recognition rate of the preferred reading is 80-90% (depending on the smoothing of parse errors).
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.
The Lyon’s team research task consists in the study of the way in which multilingual resources are mobilized in team work within collaborative activities; how they are exploited in a specific way in order both to enhance collaboration and to respect the specificities of the members’ linguistic competences and practices within the team. Central to our analytical work, which is inspired by ethnomethodological conversation analysis, is the relationship between multilingual resources and the situated organization of linguistic uses and of social practices.
This paper aims at contributing to the analysis of overlaps in turns-at-talk from both a sequential and a multimodal perspective. Overlaps have been studied within Conversation Analysis by focusing mainly on verbal and vocal resources; taking into account multimodal resources such as gesture, bodily posture, and gaze contributes to a better understanding of participants’ orientations to the sequential organization of overlapping talk and their management of speakership. First, we introduce the way in which overlaps have been studied in Conversation Analysis, mainly by Jefferson (1973, 1983, 2004) and Schegloff (2000); then we propose possible implications of their multimodal analysis. In order to demonstrate that speakers systematically orient to the overlap onset and resolution we analyze the multimodal conduct of overlapped speakers. Findings show methodical variations in trajectories of overlap resolution: speakers’ gestures in overlap display themselves as maintaining or withdrawing their turn, thereby exhibiting the speakership achieved and negotiated during overlap.
This paper offers a detailed analysis of the opening of an international meeting. English Lingua Franca as the official language of the meeting is actively discussed and negotiated by the participants. The analysis highlights the issues identified by the participants themselves in choosing a linguistic regime for their professional exchanges. The English Lingua Franca regime is aimed at facilitating the participation of some of the participants, but creates problems for others, too. The chairman deals with this situation in an embodied way (through his gaze, gesture, bodily postures, and by the way in which he walks through the room), displaying that he orients to different member categories (such as 'anglophone', 'anglophone who can understand French', 'francophile', etc.) as benefitting from or resisting against the definitive language choice.
Linguistics is facing the challenge of many other sciences as it continues to grow into increasingly complex subfields, each with its own separate or overarching branches. While linguists are certainly aware of the overall structure of the research field, they cannot follow all developments other than those of their subfields. It is thus important to help specialists but also newcomers alike to bushwhack through evolved or unknown territory of linguistic data. A considerable amount of research data in linguistics is described with metadata. While studies described and published in archived journals and conference proceedings receive a quite homogeneous set of metadata tags — e.g., author, title, publisher —, this does not hold for the empirical data and analyses that underlie such studies. Moreover, lexicons, grammars, experimental data, and other types of resources come in different forms; and to make things worse, their description in terms of metadata is also not uniform, if existing at all. These problems are well-known and there are now a number of international initiatives — e.g., CLARIN, FlareNet, MetaNet, DARIAH — to build infrastructures for managing linguistic resources. The NaLiDa project, funded by the German Research Foundation, aims at facilitating the management and access to linguistic resources originating from German research institutions. In cooperation with the German SFB 833 research center, we are developing a combination of faceted and full-text search to give integrated access through heterogeneous metadata sets. Our approach is supported by a central registry for metadata field descriptors, and a component repository for structured groups of data categories as larger building blocks.
This paper uses a devil’s advocate position to highlight the benefits of metadata creation for linguistic resources. It provides an overview of the required metadata infrastructure and shows that this infrastructure is in the meantime developed by various projects and hence can be deployed by those working with linguistic resources and archiving. Possible caveats of metadata creation are mentioned starting with user requirements and backgrounds, contribution to academic merits of researchers and standardisation. These are answered with existing technologies and procedures, referring to the Component Metadata Infrastructure (CMDI). CMDI provides an infrastructure and methods for adapting metadata to the requirements of specific classes of resources, using central registries for data categories, and metadata schemas. These registries allow for the definition of metadata schemas per resource type while reusing groups of data categories also used by other schemas. In summary, rules of best practice for the creation of metadata are given.
Wenn man verschiedenartige Forschungsdaten über Metadaten inhaltlich beschreiben möchte, sind bibliografische Angaben allein nicht ausreichend. Vielmehr benötigt man zusätzliche Beschreibungsmittel, die der Natur und Komplexität gegebener Forschungsressourcen Rechnung tragen. Verschiedene Arten von Forschungsdaten bedürfen verschiedener Metadatenprofile, die über gemeinsame Komponenten definiert werden. Solche Forschungsdaten können gesammelt (z.B. über OAI-PMH-Harvesting) und mittels Facetten-basierter Suche über eine einheitliche Schnittstelle exploriert werden. Der beschriebene Anwendungskontext kann über sprachwissenschaftliche Daten hinaus verallgemeinert werden.
XML has been designed for creating structured documents, but the information that is encoded in these structures are, by definition, out of scope for XML. Additional sources, normally not easily interpretable by computers, such as documentation are needed to determine the intention of specific tags in a tag-set. The Component Metadata Infrastructure (CMDI) takes a rather pragmatic approach to foster interoperability between XML instances in the domain of metadata descriptions for language resources. This paper gives an overview of this approach.