Refine
Year of publication
- 2012 (23) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (10)
- Article (7)
- Conference Proceeding (4)
- Book (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (23)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (23)
Keywords
- Digitalisierung (4)
- Computerlinguistik (3)
- Deutsch (3)
- Medien (3)
- Diskursethik (2)
- Englisch (2)
- Erzählforschung (2)
- Grammatik (2)
- Handlungsstruktur <Literatur> (2)
- Kulturwandel (2)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (23) (remove)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (13)
- Peer-Review (9)
Publisher
- Narr (3)
- de Gruyter (3)
- Association for Computational Linguistics (1)
- Beltz Juventa (1)
- Campus Verlag (1)
- Facultas (1)
- Hempen Verlag (1)
- Jagiellonian University Press (1)
- Lang (1)
- Olms (1)
Für die Grammatikschreibung des Deutschen ist die Negation eine Herausforderung. Das betrifft schon das Inventar der Negationsausdrücke wie nicht, kein oder niemand. In welchem Verhältnis stehen sie zueinander, und wann wird welcher Negationsausdruck gewählt? Die Negationspartikel nicht kann in den meisten Sätzen unterschiedliche Stellungen einnehmen, womit subtile Bedeutungsunterschiede einhergehen. Welchen genauen syntaktischen Status nicht hat, ist bis heute umstritten. Die Negation interagiert auch eng mit der Informationsstruktur, die unter anderem durch Intonation und Akzentuierung ausgedrückt wird. Die Intonation negierter Äußerungen und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Bedeutung werden in diesem Buch besonders gründlich behandelt. Schließlich sind zur Bedeutung der Negation selbst noch wichtige Fragen zu klären, unter anderem die, welche semantischen Objekte überhaupt negiert werden können und was genau durch ihre Negation bewirkt wird.
Das Buch versucht eine Gesamtschau der Grammatik der Negation im Deutschen, die für Fachwissenschaftler, für Studierende und für allgemein Sprachinteressierte, etwa für Lehrende des Deutschen als Mutter- und Fremdsprache, zugänglich sein soll. Die begrifflichen und methodischen Voraussetzungen aller Teile werden leserfreundlich eingeführt. Dadurch ist das Buch auch als Lehrwerk für die Gebiete Syntax, Informationsstruktur und Satzsemantik des Deutschen im Linguistikstudium verwendbar.
This chapter explores the Linguistic Landscape of six medium-size towns in the Baltic States with regard to languages of tourism and to the role of English and Russian as linguae francae. A quantitative analysis of signs and of tourism web sites shows that, next to the state languages, English is the most dominant language. Yet, interviews reveal that underneath the surface, Russian still stands strong. Therefore, possible claims that English might take over the role of the main lingua franca in the Baltic States cannot be maintained. English has a strong position for attracting international tourists, but only alongside Russian which remains important both as a language of international communication and for local needs.
Was halten die Deutschen von ihrer Muttersprache? Wie denken sie über andere Sprachen und deutsche Dialekte (siehe auch Schoel / Stahlberg in diesem Band)? Wie nehmen sie Veränderungen ihrer Sprache wahr und was halten sie von fremdsprachlichen Einflüssen, wie z. B. der Verwendung von Anglizismen? Sind Deutsche, umgekehrt betrachtet, besonders kritisch, wenn andere Deutsche Englisch sprechen? Und wie bewerten sie andere Personen, die z.B. einen französischen oder russischen Akzent im Deutschen besitzen? Mit all diesen Fragen hat sich das vorliegende Teilprojekt im Rahmen dieses von der Volkswagenstiftung geförderten Forschungsprojekts beschäftigt. Ausgehend von sozialpsychologischen Theorien und Methoden, wurden Spracheinstellungen in Deutschland näher untersucht.
In Fachsprache 1–2/2011 Czicza and Hennig proposed a model that explains correlations between grammatical features and pragmatic conditions in communication in sciences. This model now serves as a basis for the practical analysis of the scientific degree of any written text. The authors present a method of analyzing written texts concerning the four parameters ‚economy’‚ precision’, ‚impersonalization’ and ‚discussion’. The method is being developed by the analysis of a prototypical scientific article on the one hand and a non-scientific text on the other hand. The two texts serve as the two poles of the scale of scientificity. Finally, the applicability of the model and its operationalization is being illustrated by the analysis of two examples of texts that are located between the two poles (one popular scientific text and one juridical teaching article).
In this chapter, I will focus on the phenomenon of drop out, i.e., withdrawal from the turn due to overlapping talk, in order to reflect on the link between “unfinished” turns and participation framework. With the help of a sequential and multimodal analysis inspired by the conversation analytical approach, I will show that dropping out from a turn is strongly linked to the availability displayed by potential recipients of a turn-at-talk. Although conversation analysis has described in detail the systematics of overlapping talk, especially of its onset (Jefferson 1973, 1983, 1986) and its resolution (Scheg-loff 2000; Jefferson 2004), the phenomenon of withdrawal from a turn due to simultaneous talk has not been investigated in detail. While it seems to bedifficult to describe this interactional practice by referring exclusively to syntactic features (incompleteness of the turn), I suggest looking at turn withdrawal from a multimodal perspective (e.g. Goodwin 1980, 1981; Mondada2007a; Schmitt 2005), taking into account visible resources like gaze or gesture. The problem of continuing or stopping a turn-in-progress in overlapping talk can be closely linked to the participation framework (Goodwin and Goodwin 2004), as speakers do visibly take into account their recipient’s availability and coordinate their turn construction with the dynamic changes of the participation framework and the interactional space.
The ISOcat registry reloaded
(2012)
The linguistics community is building a metadata-based infrastructure for the description of its research data and tools. At its core is the ISOcat registry, a collaborative platform to hold a (to be standardized) set of data categories (i.e., field descriptors). Descriptors have definitions in natural language and little explicit interrelations. With the registry growing to many hundred entries, authored by many, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the rather informal definitions and their glossary-like design make it hard for users to grasp, exploit and manage the registry’s content. In this paper, we take a large subset of the ISOcat term set and reconstruct from it a tree structure following the footsteps of schema.org. Our ontological re-engineering yields a representation that gives users a hierarchical view of linguistic, metadata-related terminology. The new representation adds to the precision of all definitions by making explicit information which is only implicitly given in the ISOcat registry. It also helps uncovering and addressing potential inconsistencies in term definitions as well as gaps and redundancies in the overall ISOcat term set. The new representation can serve as a complement to the existing ISOcat model, providing additional support for authors and users in browsing, (re-)using, maintaining, and further extending the community’s terminological metadata repertoire.
Zur Erforschung der generationsbedingten Variation im pfälzischen Sprachinseldialekt am Niederrhein
(2012)
In this paper, we compare three different generalization methods for in-domain and cross-domain opinion holder extraction being simple unsupervised word clustering, an induction method inspired by distant supervision and the usage of lexical resources. The generalization methods are incorporated into diverse classifiers. We show that generalization causes significant improvements and that the impact of improvement depends on the type of classifier and on how much training and test data differ from each other. We also address the less common case of opinion holders being realized in patient position and suggest approaches including a novel (linguistically-informed) extraction method how to detect those opinion holders without labeled training data as standard datasets contain too few instances of this type.