Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (3)
- Book (1)
- Other (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (5) (remove)
Keywords
- Sprechakt (5) (remove)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (2)
- IDS-Verlag (1)
- LINDAT/CLARIAH-CZ (1)
- Narr Francke Attempto (1)
The representative full-text digitalized HetWiK corpus is composed of 140 manually annotated texts of the German Resistance between 1933 and 1945. This includes both well-known and relatively unknown documents, public writings, like pamphlets or memoranda, as well as private texts, e.g. letters, journal or prison entries and biographies. Thus the corpus represents the diverse groups as well as the heterogeneity of verbal resistance and allows the study of resistance in relation to the language usage. The HetWiK corpus can be used free of charge. A detailed register of the individual texts and further information about the tagset can be found on the project-homepage (german). In addition to the CATMA5 XML-format we provide a standoff-JSON format and CEC6-Files (CorpusExplorer) - so you can export the HetWiK corpus in different formats.
Lexikalische Wiederholungen nehmen in der Lehre von den rhetorischen Stilfiguren viel Raum ein; in der Linguistik des schriftsprachlichen Deutsch spielen sie dagegen kaum ein Rolle. Die Arbeit überprüft, inwieweit sich die Funktionsweise zweier Figuren der meist unmittelbaren Ausdruckswiederholung, der Geminatio und der Anadiplose, auf der Basis von Standardannahmen zur Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik des Deutschen erklären lässt.
Zugrunde liegt der Arbeit eine Sammlung von über 700 Instanzen der Geminatio und Anadiplose aus deutschsprachigen Gedichten des 17. bis 21. Jahrhunderts. Es wird daran gezeigt, wie die Geminatio unter Ausnutzung von satztopologischen und NP-internen Positionierungen und darauf aufbauenden bedeutungskompositionellen und implikaturenbasierten Prozessen der Bedeutungkonstitution zum ikonischen Ausdruck der Gradierung von Eigenschaften dient. Die Anadiplose wiederum entpuppt sich als Mittel zur Hervorhebung von Themen und Propositionen, die pragmatisch und informationsstrukturell auf ihrer Einbindung in Herausstellungskonstruktionen und Satzverknüpfungen gründet.
Damit liefern die beiden rhetorischen Figuren kaum Argumente für die Abweichungstheorie literarischer Sprache, derzufolge die Sprachverwendung in literarischen und insbesondere lyrischen Texten oft nicht den Regeln und dem Usus des nicht-literarischen Deutsch folgt. Die Funktionsweise der Geminatio und der Anadiplose ist gut in das syntaktische, semantische und pragmatische System des Deutschen eingebunden. Insbesondere die Geminatio zeigt dabei in Gedichten auch deutliche Parallelen zu entsprechenden Phänomenen im gesprochenen Deutsch.
Action ascription can be understood from two broad perspectives. On one view, it refers to the ways in which actions constitute categories by which members make sense of their world, and forms a key foundation for holding others accountable for their conduct. On another view, it refers to the ways in which we accountably respond to the actions of others, thereby accomplishing sequential versions of meaningful social experience. In short, action ascription can be understood as matter of categorisation of prior actions or responding in ways that are sequentially fitted to prior actions, or both. In this chapter, we review different theoretical approaches to action ascription that have developed in the field, as well as the key constituents and resources of action ascription that have been identified in conversation analytic research, before going on to discuss how action ascription can itself be considered a form of social action.
Social actions
(2021)
Social actions are recipient-designed actions that occur in the context of interaction sequences. This chapter focuses on sources and practices for the formation and ascription of social actions. While linguists stress the relevance of linguistic social action formats, conversation analysts highlight the relevance of the sequential position of an action, and sociolinguists point to the influence of social identities for action-formation and -ascription. The combination of these three approaches helps us to solve the analytic problem of indirectness, which, however, only rarely becomes a problem for the participants in an interaction themselves. Social properties which recurrently apply when using verbal and bodily resources of action-formation, i.e. the social actions themselves, inferred meanings, projected next actions, the participation framework, the activity type, speaker’s stance, participants’ identities, etc. lead to stable pragmatic connotations of those forms, i.e. action-meanings, which become idiomatic and part of our common-sense competence. Still, social actions are multi-layered and can be ambiguous at times. Therefore, their meaning can be open for negotiation. Intersubjectivity of action ascription is ultimately secured neither by conventions nor by speaker’s intentions, but is accomplished by their treatment in subsequent discourse.