Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (69) (remove)
Language
- German (50)
- English (13)
- Russian (3)
- Portuguese (2)
- Polish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (69)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (69) (remove)
Keywords
- Semantik (69) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (18)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (14)
- Postprint (4)
- Hybrides Open Access (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (22)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (14)
Publisher
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (7)
- de Gruyter (6)
- Akademie-Verlag (3)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (3)
- Akademie Verlag (2)
- Erich Schmidt (2)
- Lajos-Kossuth-Universität (2)
- Ministerstvo prosveščenija RSFSR; Omskij gosudarstvenny pedagogičeskij institut imeni A. M. Gor´kogo (2)
- Nodus (2)
- Schmidt (2)
Der folgende Kurzbericht hat in meinen Augen weniger die Funktion, die einzelnen Beiträge anzusprechen, als vielmehr die, gewisse vertretene Tendenzen dadurch herauszuarbeiten, daß die Referate der Sektion inhaltlich gruppiert und mit denen des letzten Kolloquiums verglichen werden. Die Berechtigung, ja Notwendigkeit eines solchen Vorgehens ergibt sich schon daraus, daß sechs der gehaltenen Referate sich — in weiterem Sinne — unter logischformale Semantik gruppieren lassen und die Darstellung formalsemantischer Systeme bereits im Rahmen der 20-minütigen Kolloquiumsvorträge problematisch ist — auf Berichtsform reduziert, scheint es mir dann völlig sinnlos zu sein, mehr zu bieten als eine Andeutung, die das Interesse für eine Lektüre des Beitrages wecken soll; eine Publikation der Akten des Kolloquiums ist geplant. Unter der Rubrik ‘logisch-formale Semantik’ lassen sich einordnen die Beiträge von Abraham, Frosch, König, Pinkal und Rieger sowie mein eigener. Bereits innerhalb dieser Rubrik zeigt sich, was auch für die gesamte Sektion Semantik und für das Kolloquium überhaupt gilt (sieben Sektionen!): eine gemeinsame Basis der Linguisten, eine Menge gemeinsamer Prämissen scheint im Moment nicht vorhanden zu sein; die Pluralität der Ansätze und Methoden triumphiert. Dadurch geht der Workshop-Charakter des Kolloquiums in zunehmendem Maße verloren, da sich jeder Teilnehmer gezwungen sieht, zunächst seine Prämissen auszubreiten, bevor er überhaupt zu inhaltlichen Aussagen Vordringen kann. Mir scheint hier ein Problem zu liegen, von dessen Lösung das Weiterbestehen des Linguistischen Kolloquiums in seiner bisherigen Form des offenen Marktes mit 20-Minuten-Vorträgen entscheidend abhängt.
The present paper examines the relationship between pragmatics, semantics and grammar as subdisciplines of linguistics from three different perspectives. The first section gives a historical survey of their development during the 20th century and classifies linguistic schools according to their interest in different fields of research. The second part presents a systematic model of the field of objects to be investigated by linguistics, aiming at a more precise delimitation of its subdisciplines. Finally, in the third section, the division of labour between pragmatics, semantics and grammar is discussed in the light of the concrete example of verb valence.
Anaphora by pronouns
(1983)
An adequate conception of anaphora is still a desideratum. Considering the anaphoric use of third-person personal pronouns, the present study contributes to the solution of the question of what anaphora is. Major tenets of generative approaches to pronominal anaphora are surveyed; descriptive and methodological problems with transformational as well as interpretive treatments are discussed. The prevailing assumption that anaphora is a syntactically based phenomenon is shown tobe inadequate. In particular, it is argued that pronominal anaphora does not constitute a case of eilher a syntactic ( agreement) relation or a semantic ( coreference) relation between antecedents and anaphors, i.e. linguistic expressions. Infact, there is no grammatical antecedent-anaphor relation that is essential to the description of pronouns. Pronouns are to be treated in their own right rather than by recourse to supposed antecedents. An account of the use of pronouns has to be based on a notion of speaker reference and on a unified description of lexical entries for pronouns that specify their meanings. Sampie entries for English are suggested. It is emphasized that pronoun meanings rejlect social, not biological, classifications of possible referents. To the extent that pronouns are used according to morphosyntactic features, as in languages like German or French, lexical entries for pronouns should specify the pronouns' 'associative potential'. Associative potential has the samefunction as conceptual meaning, viz. delimiting the associated extension. In addition to this, pronouns turn out to differ from 'normal definite nominals' only in the low conceptual content of their meanings. Pronoun occurrences that apparently agree with and are coreferential with referential antecedents are found to form a restricted subclass of pronoun use in generat as weil as of anaphoric pronoun use. Thus one must refrainfromforcing each and every pronoun occurrence into this mold. Instead, anaphora by pronouns is characterized as a type of use where pronouns serve to refer to referents that the speaker considers to be retrievable from the universe-of-discourse.
Our paper outlines a proposal for the consistent modeling of heterogeneous lexical structures in semasiological dictionaries, based on the element structures described in detail in chapter 9 (Dictionaries) of the TEI Guidelines. The core of our proposal describes a system of relatively autonomous lexical “crystals” that can, within the constraints of the relevant element’s definition, be combined to form complex structures for the description of morphological form, grammatical information, etymology, word-formation, and meaning for a lexical structure.
The encoding structures we suggest guarantee sustainability and support re-usability and interoperability of data. This paper presents case studies of encoding dictionary entries in order to illustrate our concepts and test their usability.
We comment on encoding issues involving <entry>, <form>, <etym>, and on refinements to the internal content of <sense>.