Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (220)
- Article (75)
- Review (17)
- Book (9)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
Language
- German (315)
- English (8)
- Multiple languages (1)
Keywords
- Deutsch (272)
- Sprachgeschichte (45)
- Wortbildung (34)
- Verb (23)
- Mehrsprachigkeit (22)
- Syntax (21)
- Rezension (19)
- Sprachwandel (19)
- Standardsprache (19)
- Sprachkontakt (16)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (35)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (26)
- Postprint (8)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (44)
- Peer-Review (11)
- Verlags-Lektorat (5)
- Peer-review (2)
- Verlagslektorat (2)
- (Verlags-)Lektorat (1)
- Peer Review (1)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (34)
- Niemeyer (26)
- Narr (25)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (20)
- Winter (20)
- Steiner (14)
- De Gruyter (13)
- Lang (13)
- Iudicium (11)
- Stauffenburg (9)
Even though the use of several languages has become more common in modern societies, it is important to find a common language in order to communicate economically (by the way, also with regard to economic success). So, of course, it is an advantage and a basic request in our national societies to be able to communicate by means of the national language(s). But looking a bit closer at the communicative demands of today one sees that there is a growing need to react to internal variation, and that a modern linguistic identity not only covers that fact, but also the fact, that English – in different forms – is part of a linguistic spectrum fitting a modern European communicative life. In the last years a communicative pattern is developing within an elite group of young academically educated people that is based on the use of English only, more or less ignoring the connection to the national linguistic surroundings, somehow kind of an alternative monolingualism. But looking at the communicative needs in our complex societies losing the ability to cope with different linguistic options in different communicative situations and to integrate this possibility into your linguistic identity is a rather restricted option – also in economic terms. And this even holds not taking into account the linguistic effect of modern migration.
Im Kontext des Essens und seiner Zubereitung, der Speisen und ihres Verzehrs, akzentuiert das Wort Gericht, dass es sich bei der gesellschaftlich üblichen Form von Nahrungsaufnahme um eine spezifisch ausgeformte soziale Praxis handelt. In diesem Handlungs- und Interpretationskontext wird mit dem Wort Gericht hervorgehoben, dass eine auf bestimmte Weise zubereitete („zugerichtete“) Speise als relevanter Teil einer Mahlzeit zu gelten hat. Wie bei solchen Alltagspraktiken nicht unüblich, ist die Verwendung dieses Worts nicht scharf von anderen Benennungen in diesem Kontext zu trennen, von denen die Praktiken des Essens nicht so sehr über die „Zurichtung“, sondern z.B. über die Abfolge (z.B. Hauptspeise, Gang usw.) geleistet werden. Allerdings ist mit dem Angerichtetsein, das im Wort Gericht steckt, doch auch immer seine Angemessenheit angedeutet, etwas, was es mit dem gleichlautenden juristischen Wort verbindet – und zu mancherlei textueller Verbindung führt.
Gute Argumente. Wo beginnen?
(2019)
Gerade allgemeinere Verben zeigen eine Variationsbreite der Verwendung, die nicht leicht zu einem einheitlichen Bild zu fassen ist. Am Beispiel des Verbs beginnen wird gezeigt, wie hier die Interaktion zwischen der Struktur der Aktanten und den grammatischen Regelmäßigkeiten funktioniert. Dabei wird versucht, in der Kombination von Valenzinformationen, Argumentstrukturpositionierungen und Musterbildungen im Gebrauch ein zusammenhängendes Bild dieses Verbs in seinen verschiedenen Verwendungen zu entwerfen.
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.
Central complements: good arguments are self-explanatory.
Together with its central complements, verbs model basic patterns of interaction. The constellations of these complements in turn correspond to central patterns of the argument structure. Nominative and accusative complements formally occupy the first and second positions (subject and object), but they also have certain semantic preferences. The formal function of the dative is less pronounced, where it occurs (ditransitive verbs) the semantic imprint of the frame („transfer“) is very strong. This corresponds to the meaning of a core group of corresponding verbs. Other verbs that allow this pattern are used more often in other valence structures and the ditransitive use appears as a systematic way of personal extension of object‑related activities. This will be discussed with reference to the verbs zeigen and (in a different way) lehren.
Die Zeitung und die Welt
(2019)
Baiern im Raum
(2018)