Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (17)
- Article (15)
- Book (4)
- Review (4)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (42) (remove)
Keywords
- Wissenschaftssprache (42) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (16)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (9)
- Postprint (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (21)
- Peer-Review (5)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (7)
- Lang (3)
- iudicium (3)
- Erich Schmidt Verlag (2)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (2)
- Steiner (2)
- Universidad de Barcelona (2)
- Winter (2)
- Benjamins (1)
- Bibliographisches Institut (1)
Seit der Forschung große Datenmengen und Rechenkapazitäten zur Verfügung stehen arbeitet auch die Sprachwissenschaft zunehmend datengeleitet. Datengeleitete Forschung geht nicht von einer Hypothese aus, sondern sucht nach statistischen Auffälligkeiten in den Daten. Sprache wird dabei oft stark vereinfacht als lineare Abfolge von Wörtern betrachtet. Diese Studie zeigt erstmals, wie der zusätzliche Einbezug syntaktischer Annotationen dabei hilft, sprachliche Strukturen des Deutschen besser zu erfassen.
Als Anwendungsbeispiel dient der Vergleich der Wissenschaftssprachen von Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft. Die beiden Fächer werden oft als Teildisziplinen der Germanistik zusammengefasst. Ihre wissenschaftliche Praxis unterscheidet sich jedoch systematisch hinsichtlich Forschungsdaten, Methoden und Erkenntnisinteressen, was sich auch in den Wissenschaftssprachen niederschlägt.
The article aims to show how it is possible to use the idea of constructions in Construction Grammar for the purpose of capturing discourse phenomena within communication in sciences. First, 1 present an analysis of three grammatical examples in order to account for them as constructions. This attempt is based on their specific features relating to the role they play in scientific articles. It is then argued that the pragmatic properties described in connection with specific grammatical phenomena can be embedded in a general framework to account for text units as discourse-level constructions.
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).
Professional and technical practice and the technical character of social interaction.
The focus on communication in research on professional and scientific language somehow reflects the intention of John L. Austin’s phrase “How to do things with words?” But a description based on the concept of communication ultimately also relies on linguistic idiosyncrasies. We will look at things the other way round and ask first “how to do (professional) things” and then look at the linguistic units used specifically for this purpose. Professionalism in this view takes very different forms for different types of actions (“practices”). Although reliability and professional authority are central features of all linguistic realizations to be considered, they are represented in very different ways. As a result, professionalism not only shows in the high degree of explicitness of technical prose typical for written scientific discussion. It is also reflected in the high degree of implicitness of speech that accompanies and constitutes practical action.
Linguistische Terminologie
(1989)