Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (34)
- Part of a Book (11)
- Conference Proceeding (9)
- Other (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (56)
Keywords
- Deutsch (25)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (12)
- Konversationsanalyse (5)
- Rumänisch (5)
- Computerlinguistik (4)
- Englisch (4)
- Rezension (4)
- Annotation (3)
- Französisch (3)
- Historische Phonetik (3)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (37)
- Postprint (10)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-review (56) (remove)
Publisher
- De Gruyter (7)
- TUDpress (3)
- Elsevier (2)
- Oxford University Press (2)
- de Gruyter (2)
- iudicium (2)
- Association for Computational Linguistics (1)
- Brill (1)
- Budrich (1)
- EACL (1)
The article discusses the possibilities and challenges of combining conversation analysis and ethnography in the study of everyday family life. We argue that such a combination requires the decision whether to prioritise interaction data or ethno-graphic (in particular, interview) data in the analysis. We present a conversation analytic case study of how household work is commonly brought up in the interactions of one couple and bring this to bear on a re-analysis of a possible conflict situation originally described in the ethnographic analysis by Klein, Izquierdo, and Bradbury (2007), published in this journal. While the findings of the two analyses converge, they inform us about different dimensions of couple interaction. The ethnographic analysis is focused on participants’ experiences, and the conversation analysis is focused on participants’ practices. We conclude that the methodological decision to prioritise interaction or interview data has consequences for the kind of questions we can ask.
Gegenstand des Aufsatzes sind Sätze mit so genannten inneren Objekten, das sind Akkusativobjekte, die im Wesentlichen intransitive Verben gelegentlich zu sich nehmen. Sie weisen die Besonderheit auf, dass das Objektsnomen und das Verb morphologisch, etymologisch und/oder semantisch miteinander verwandt sind. Aufgrund von Form- und vor allem Bedeutungsunterschieden lassen sich in beiden Sprachen verschiedene Gruppen von inneren Objekten ausmachen, die genauer beschrieben und unter sprachvergleichenden Gesichtspunkten betrachtet werden. Dazu werden u.a. die syntaktischen Eigenschaften von Sätzen mit inneren Objekten herangezogen. Einige auffallende sprachbezogene Unterschiede werden beschrieben, beispielsweise ist im Rumänischen bei einigen Verben ein präpositionaler Anschluss möglich, wo im Deutschen das innere Objekt ausschließlich im Akkusativ stehen kann. Sätze mit inneren Objekten können als ein Typ von Argumentstrukturmustern betrachtet werden. In diesem Sinne sind sie Form-Bedeutungs-Paare, deren Beziehungen untereinander innerhalb eines Konzepts von Familienähnlichkeiten dargestellt werden, wie man sie auch innerhalb anderer Cluster von Argumentstrukturmustern beobachten kann.
Interview mit Ulrich Engel
(2017)
When a noise verb is used to indicate verbal communication, factors from both the source domain of the verb (perception) and the target domain (communication) play a role in determining the argument structure of the sentence. While the target domain supplies a syntactic structure, the source domain’s semantics constrain the degree to which that syntactic structure can be exploited. This can be determined by comparing noise verbs in this use with manner-of-communication verbs, which are superficially similar, but native to communication. Data for these two classes of verbs were drawn from the British National Corpus. The data were annotated with frame-semantic markup, as described in the Berkeley FrameNet Project. We compared the presence, type of syntactic realization, and position of the semantically annotated arguments for both classes of verbs. We found that noise and manner verbs show statistically significant differences in these three areas. For instance, noise verbs are more focused on the form of the message than manner verbs: noise verbs appear more frequently with a quoted message. In addition, there are differences other than the complementation patterns: certain noise verbs are biased with respect to speakers’ genders, message types, and even orthography in quoted messages
Lexicographic meaning descriptions of German lexical items which are formally and semantically similar and therefore easily confused (so-called paronyms) often do not reflect their current usage of lexical items. They can even contradict one’s personal intuition or disagree with lexical usage as observed in public discourse. The reasons are manifold. Language data used for compiling dictionaries is either outdated, or lexicographic practice is rather conventional and does not take advantage of corpus-assisted approaches to semantic analysis. Despite of various modern electronic or online reference works speakers face uncertainties when dealing with easily confusable words. These are for example sensibel/sensitiv (sensitive) or kindisch/kindlich (childish/childlike). Existing dictionaries often do not provide satisfactory answers as to how to use these sets correctly. Numerous questions addressed in online forums show where uncertainties with paronyms are and why users demand further assistance concerning proper contextual usage (cf. Storjohann 2015). There are different reasons why users misuse certain items or mix up words which are similar in form and meaning. As data from written and more spontaneous language resources suggest, some confusions arise due to ongoing semantic change in the current use of some paronyms. This paper identifies shortcomings of contemporary German Dictionaries and discusses innovative ways of empirical lexicographic work that might pave the way for a new data-driven, descriptive reference work of confusable German terms. Currently, such a guide is being developed at the Institute for German Language in Mannheim implementing corpora and diverse corpus-analytical methods. Its objective is to compile a dictionary with contrastive entries which is a useful reference tool in situation of language doubt. At the same time, it aims at sensitizing users of context dependency and language change.
As the nature of negative polarity items (NPIs) and their licensing contexts is still under much debate, a broad empirical basis is an important cornerstone to support further insights in this area of research. The work discussed in this paper is intended as a contribution to realizing this objective. The authors briefly introduce the phenomenon of NPIs and outline major theories about their licensing and also various licensing contexts before discussing our major topics: Firstly, a corpus-based retrieval method for NPI candidates is described that ranks the candidates according to their distributional dependence on the licensing contexts. Our method extracts single-word candidates and is extended to also capture multi-word candidates. The basic idea for automatically collecting NPI candidates from a large corpus is that an NPI behaves like a kind of collocate to its licensing contexts. Manual inspection and interpretation of the candidate lists identify the actual NPIs. Secondly, an online repository for NPIs and other items that show distributional idiosyncrasies is presented, which offers an empirical database for further (theoretical) research on these items in a sustainable way.
Der Beitrag behandelt konzeptionelle und methodische Fragen aus einem Projekt, in dem eine neue Referenzausgabe des Thomas Mannschen Gesamtwerks für die Publikation in zwei Medien aufbereitet wird: als Buch und als elektronische Ausgabe. Die Basis dafür bildet ein Informationspool, in dem die Texte SGML/XML-basiert vorgehalten und durch eine Topic Map verknüpft werden. Der Beitrag skizziert die Architektur des Systems sowie die dahinter stehenden technischen und konzeptionellen Überlegungen. Es wird gezeigt, wie gerade die elektronische Version neue Wege beschreitet, damit ein Arbeitswerkzeug für Literaturwissenschaftler entsteht, das völlig neuartige Zugriffsmöglichkeiten auf das Werk Thomas Manns bietet.
Der vorliegende Beitrag besteht aus zwei größeren Teilen: Zum einen (vgl. Abschnitt 2) werden strukturelle Eigenschaften des Infinitivs, oder vielmehr der Infinitive, im Deutschen und Rumänischen erörtert und miteinander verglichen. Leitthema ist dabei die Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Verbalität und Nominalität der Formen. Berücksichtigt werden die Beschreibungsbereiche Morphologie, externe und interne Syntax. Dieser empirischen Erörterung vorausgeschickt (vgl. Abschnitt 1) wird der Versuch einer Begriffsbestimmung: Wie kann, wenn überhaupt, ‘Infinitiv’ übereinzelsprachlich definiert werden? Auf dieser Basis wird zum anderen (vgl. Abschnitt 3) eine prototypische syntaktische Funktion von Infinitiven, die Subjektfunktion, einer vergleichenden Analyse unterzogen. Strukturelle und semantische Beschränkungen für Infinitive in Subjektfunktion in den beiden Vergleichssprachen werden untersucht. Speziell im Falle kausativer Verben als Prädikatsverben lassen sich relevante Unterschiede zwischen dem Deutschen und Rumänischen feststellen. Die Verwendungsrestriktionen für die Subjektfunktion der deutschen und rumänischen Infinitive werden in Beziehung gesetzt zu Eigenschaften der „Orientierung“ bzw. „Kontrolle“ der Infinitivformen. Ausgehend davon lassen sich tendenziell auch feine Gebrauchsunterschiede für den verbalen und nominalen Infinitiv im Deutschen ausmachen.
We provide a unified account of semantic effects observable in attested examples of the German applicative (‘be-’) construction, e.g. Rollstuhlfahrer Poul Sehachsen aus Kopenhagen will den 1997 erschienenen Wegweiser Handiguide Europa fortführen und zusammen mit Movado Berlin berollen (‘Wheelchair user Poul Schacksen from Copenhagen wants to continue the guide ‘Handiguide Europe’, which came out in 1997, and roll Berlin together with Movado.’). We argue that these effects do not come from lexico-semantic operations on ‘input’ verbs, but are instead the products of a reconciliation procedure in which the meaning of the verb is integrated into the event-structure schema denoted by the applicative construction. We analyze the applicative pattern as an argument-structure construction, in terms of Goldberg (1995). We contrast this approach with that of Brinkmann (1997), in which properties associated with the applicative pattern (e.g. omissibility of the theme argument, holistic interpretation of the goal argument, and planar construal of the location argument) are attributed to general semantico-pragmatic principles. We undermine the generality of the principles as stated, and assert that these properties are instead construction-particular. We further argue that the constructional account provides an elegant model of the valence-creation and valence-augmentation functions of the prefix. We describe the constructional semantics as prototype-based: diverse implications of fee-predications, including iteration, transfer, affectedness, intensity and saturation, derive via regular patterns of semantic extension from the topological concept of coverage.
Catching the common cause: extraction and annotation of causal relations and their participants
(2017)
In this paper, we present a simple, yet effective method for the automatic identification and extraction of causal relations from text, based on a large English-German parallel corpus. The goal of this effort is to create a lexical resource for German causal relations. The resource will consist of a lexicon that describes constructions that trigger causality as well as the participants of the causal event, and will be augmented by a corpus with annotated instances for each entry, that can be used as training data to develop a system for automatic classification of causal relations. Focusing on verbs, our method harvested a set of 100 different lexical triggers of causality, including support verb constructions. At the moment, our corpus includes over 1,000 annotated instances. The lexicon and the annotated data will be made available to the research community.
Feedback utterances are among the most frequent in dialogue. Feedback is also a crucial aspect of linguistic theories that take social interaction, involving language, into account. This paper introduces the corpora and datasets of a project scrutinizing this kind of feedback utterances in French. We present the genesis of the corpora (for a total of about 16 hours of transcribed and phone force-aligned speech) involved in the project. We introduce the resulting datasets and discuss how they are being used in on-going work with focus on the form-function relationship of conversational feedback. All the corpora created and the datasets produced in the framework of this project will be made available for research purposes.
This contribution offers a fine-grained analysis of German and Romanian ditransitive and prepositional transfer constructions. The transfer construction (TC) is shown to be realised in German by 26 argument structure patterns (ASPs), which are conceived of as form-meaning pairings which differ only minimally. The mainstream constructionist view of the different types of TCs being related by polysemy links is rejected, the ASPs being argued instead to be related by family relationships. All but six of the ASPs identified for German are shown to possess a Romanian counterpart. For some ditransitive structures, German is shown to possess two prepositional variants, one with an (‘at’) and one with zu (‘to’) or auf (‘on’), while Romanian has only one. Due to the lack of a Romanian counterpart for the German zu and auf variants, Romanian lacks some of the dative alternations found in German. However, Romanian as well as German permits the double object pattern to interact with take-verbs, verbs of removal and add-verbs, which do not allow the ditransitive construction in English. Since these verb classes also permit at least one prepositional pattern in both languages, Romanian and German show a larger number of dative alternation types than English.