Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (4)
- Part of a Book (3)
- Book (2)
- Review (1)
Language
- German (10)
Has Fulltext
- yes (10)
Keywords
- Wissenschaftssprache (10) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (10) (remove)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (6)
- Peer-Review (3)
Publisher
- Bibliographisches Institut (1)
- Dudenverlag (1)
- Erich Schmidt Verlag (1)
- Facultas (1)
- Frank & Timme (1)
- Narr (1)
- Stauffenburg (1)
- University of Ostrava (1)
- Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (WGL) (1)
- iudicium (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).
Close repetitions of lexical material can create an impression of clumsiness in the style of Italian prose, while they seem to be accepted with more ease in German. The present study shows that this traditional claim needs some further differentiation. The negative effects on style take place in Italian when informationally prominent words are repeated, while informational background material may - and in certain cases even must - be repeated for clarity. The comparative study investigates lexical, syntactic and prosodic resources for indicating adversative (contrast) relations in argumentative texts from the field of humanities, written in Italian and German. It shows that, for encoding this kind of relation, Italian depends very much on lexical resources, including repetitions of words, while German makes more use of syntactic and prosodic parallelism. As a consequence, German can often dispense with adversative connectives and allows to employ word repetitions for different purposes.
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.
Sprache in der Wissenschaft
(1998)