Refine
Year of publication
- 2014 (28) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (28) (remove)
Language
- English (28) (remove)
Keywords
- Konversationsanalyse (5)
- Deutsch (4)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (4)
- Gesprochene Sprache (3)
- Kognitive Grammatik (3)
- Arzt (2)
- Patient (2)
- Verkehrssprache (2)
- 3-Circle-Model (1)
- Argumentstruktur (1)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (6)
- Postprint (4)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (8)
- Peer-Review (2)
- Verlags-Lektorat (2)
- Peer-review (1)
Publisher
- Benjamins (5)
- Cambridge Scholars Publ. (4)
- De Gruyter (4)
- de Gruyter (4)
- Peter Lang (2)
- Routledge (2)
- Aisthesis Verlag (1)
- Bloomsbury (1)
- Cambridge Scholars Publishing (1)
- ELRA (1)
This paper seeks to apply the principles of the famous 3-Circle-Model devised for the description of the ecolinguistic position of English world-wide to the position of German around the world.
On the one hand, the 3-Circle-Model for English with its "Inner", "Outer" and "Extended/Expanding" Circles was invented by Kachru in the 1980s and has since then been adopted, refined and criticised by numerous authors. The situation of German world-wide, on the other hand, has only been scarcely discussed in the past 20 years. While the global extension of German is obviously by far weaker than that of English, there are also a number of noteworthy similarities in terms of historical spread and the current position of these two languages.
This paper therefore discusses the analogies of global English and German by establishing three circles for German: the Inner Circle for the core German-speaking area, i.e. Germany, Austria and Switzerland; the Outer Circle including a number of German minority areas (mostly in Europe), and finally the Extended Circle which may be denoted as "Crumbling" rather than "Expanding". The latter comprises traditional German diaspora communities in different parts of the world which either result from migration, but also reflect the previous functions of German as a language of culture and as a lingua franca in regions like Eastern Europe. The paper argues that there are some striking structural similarities, but also shows the limits of this comparison.
This chapter focuses on the way in which co-present parties in meetings manage language choice and treat it as raising problems of participation - in the sense that participants can orient to the fact that a given language choice may increase or diminish participation for some or all co-present group members. Choosing one language rather than another is approached here as a members' problem (in an ethnomethodological sense), and as a decision the participants make themselves, in situ and within their courses of action, displaying the way in which they orient to its local consequences, and how they justify and legitimize it. In order to explore this link between language choice and participation systematically, in this chapter we focus on a particular and recurrent phenomenon, the announcement of a language change. Within the conversation analysis framework, we analyse these announcements by taking into account the sequential position in which they occur, their format, the way in which they are addressed to a sub-group or to the group as a whole, and the specific action they accomplish. We will also look at how the group receives the announcement, its effects on the participation framework, as well as the categorizations that ensue from it. This chapter therefore highlights the mutual configuration between language choice and participation framework. Our analyses are based on several video- and audio-recorded corpora of international work meetings. These video data call for reflection not only on the linguistic dimension of participation frameworks and language switches, but more broadly on their multimodal organization. This chapter shows that multimodal details are crucial if we aim to understand the relation between multilingualism and participation as occasioned, contingent and emergent dynamics.
Annotating Spoken Language
(2014)
Power, in this article, is to be understood as an instrument of force that is imposed purposely in order to influence, affect or persuade others. The question here is whether such power is due to aggressive expressions (lexical level) or to context-dependent aspects (discourse level) that become relevant when insulting persons via new media. I will distinguish between “cyberbullying” as an attempt to hurt a persons feelings directly via personal SMS or email and “virtual character assassination attempts” that include third parties as an audience. Potential readers not directly involved are considered a constitutive eliciting element of power. It is assumed that their existence is even more important and effective (in terms of strengthening the perpetrators power) than aggressive language.
Content analysis provides a useful and multifaceted, methodological framework for Twitter analysis. CAQDAS tools support the structuring of textual data by enabling categorising and coding. Depending on the research objective, it may be appropriate to choose a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative and qualitative elements of analysis and plays out their respective advantages to the greatest possible extent while minimising their shortcomings. In this chapter, we will discuss CAQDAS speech act analysis of tweets as an example of software-assisted content analysis. We start with some elementary thoughts on the challenges of the collection and evaluation of Twitter data before we give a brief description of the potentials and limitations of using the software QDA Miner (as one typical example for possible analysis programmes). Our focus will lie on analytical features that can be particularly helpful in speech act analysis of tweets.
Following a welcome in Lithuanian and English to the guests and members on the occa- sion of the 10"’ anniversary of EFNIL, the history of this European language Organization is sketched. A brief survey of the sociolinguistic themes treated at previous Conferences and the state of the inajor projects is given, followed by an introduction (in German) to the general topic of the present Conference. The importance that translation and interpretation have for European language diversity and the individual national languages beside foreign language education of all Europeans is being stressed.
In recent minimalist work, it has been argued that C-agreement provides conclusive support for the following theoretical hypotheses (cf. Carstens 2003; van Koppen 2005; Haegeman & van Koppen 2012): (i) C hosts a separate set of phi-features, a parametric choice possibly linked to the V2 property; (ii) feature checking/valuation is accomplished under (closest) c-command (i.e. by the operation Agree, cf. Chomsky 2000 and subsequent work). This paper reviews the significance of C-agreement for syntactic theory and argues that certain systematic asymmetries between regular verbal agreement and complementizer agreement suggest that the latter does not result from operations that are part of narrow syntax. The case is based on the observation that at least in some Germanic varieties (most notably Bavarian), the realization of inflectional features in the C-domain is sensitive to adjacency effects and deletion of the finite verb in right node raising and comparatives. The fact that C may not carry inflection when the finite verb has been elided is taken to suggest that complementizer agreement does not involve a dependency between C and the subject, but father between C and the finite verb (i.e. T). More precisely, it is argued that inflectional features present in the C-domain are added postsyntactically via a process of feature insertion (cf. e.g. Embick 1997; Embick & Noyer 2001; Harbour 2003) that creates a copy of T’s (valued) <J)-set. It will then be shown that this account can also capture phenomena like first conjunct agreement (FCA) and external possessor agreement, which are often presented as crucial evidence of the syntactic nature of complementizer agreement (cf. van Koppen 2005; Haegeman & van Koppen 2012).