ja
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (4083)
- Article (2790)
- Book (701)
- Conference Proceeding (682)
- Part of Periodical (288)
- Review (211)
- Other (141)
- Working Paper (80)
- Doctoral Thesis (64)
- Report (34)
Language
- German (7328)
- English (1553)
- Russian (144)
- French (33)
- Multiple languages (20)
- Portuguese (14)
- Spanish (12)
- Polish (7)
- Ukrainian (5)
- Italian (3)
Keywords
- Deutsch (4848)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (887)
- Wörterbuch (554)
- Konversationsanalyse (385)
- Rezension (383)
- Grammatik (368)
- Rechtschreibung (366)
- Sprachgebrauch (336)
- Gesprochene Sprache (316)
- Sprachgeschichte (307)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (3758)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (1618)
- Postprint (373)
- Preprint (9)
- Erstveröffentlichung (8)
- Ahead of Print (7)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (4)
- Hybrides Open Access (2)
- Verlags-Lektorat (1)
- Verlagsveröffentlichung (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (3660)
- Peer-Review (1507)
- Verlags-Lektorat (83)
- Peer-review (51)
- Qualifikationsarbeit (Dissertation, Habilitationsschrift) (42)
- Review-Status-unbekannt (14)
- (Verlags-)Lektorat (9)
- Abschlussarbeit (Bachelor, Master, Diplom, Magister) (Bachelor, Master, Diss.) (9)
- Peer-Revied (5)
- (Verlags-)lektorat (4)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (1190)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (1080)
- Schwann (638)
- Narr (415)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (263)
- Niemeyer (193)
- Lang (165)
- IDS-Verlag (144)
- Narr Francke Attempto (143)
- De Gruyter (118)
The paper will give a concise account of the theory of Lexical Event Structures. The paper has three objectives which correspond to the following three sections. In section 2 I will sketch the theory and discuss the empirical goals the theory pursues (section 2.1) and the semantic components Lexical Event Structures consist of (section 2.2). Section 3 is devoted to linguistic phenomena whose explanation depends on Lexical Event Structures. In section 3.1 I will briefly illustrate in how far Lexical Event Structures are related to phenomena from five central empirical domains of lexical semantics and in section 3.2 it will be shown how Lexical Event Structures function in a linking theory. Section 4 aims to show how the central semantic concepts in Lexical Event Structures can be anchored to concepts which are well-founded in cognitive science. Section 4.1 discusses the event concept employed and illustrates the relation between the perception of movements and the use of verbs of movement. Section 4.2 deals with the concept of volition with respect to the licensing conditions for intransitive verb passives. In section 4.3 the distinction between durativity and punctuality, which has proven relevant for a number of verb semantic phenomena, is tied to the way we perceive events and structure our own actions. Section 5 provides a conclusion.
Die lexikographische Behandlung von Argumentstrukturvarianten in Valenz- und Lernerwörterbüchern
(2010)
Between 1884 and 1900, Germany established protectorates in large areas of the South Pacific. The authorities assumed that the linguistically extremely diverse areas would pose communication problems. Thus the question arose whether German should become the lingua franca in the South Pacific. After a controversial discussion; the German government implemented language policies to promote the German language in the colonies. This chapter shows why, on the one hand, German language policies were doomed to failure and why, on the other, they unintentionally supported other linguistic developments such as the introduction of borrowing from German into indigenous languages, the development of German settler varieties, and the spread of pidgin languages.
This special issue of the Journal of Pragmatics has its origins in the International Conference on Conversation Analysis 10 (ICCA10), which took place in Mannheim (Germany) in July 2010. More than 650 scholars attended the conference, whose theme was ‘‘multimodal interaction’’. This volume includes papers based on the four plenary talks given at ICCA10 and four additional contributions related to the conference theme.
Der vorliegende Aufsatz untersucht, wie Negationen in Gesprächen verwendet werden können, um Interpretationen des Sprecherhandelns durch den Partner zu beeinflussen und zu steuern. Zunächst werden die dafür benötigten theoretischen und methodischen Werkzeuge vorgestellt: die interaktionsanalytischen Konzepte des Adressatenzuschnitts und des common ground (CG), Grundzüge der Syntax und Semantik der Negation sowie ihre Funktionsweise als Verfahren zur Abwahl von Annahmen erster, zweiter und dritter Ordnung. Im empirischen Teil wird im Einzelnen gezeigt, wie Negationen genutzt werden, um im Gesprächsverlauf prospektiv und retrospektiv die Deutung von Sprecherhandlungen durch den Adressaten zu beschränken. Die interaktionalen Motivationen und die rhetorischen Potenziale des Einsatzes von Negationen zur Interpretationsrestriktion werden aufgezeigt. Die Analyse demonstriert die Notwendigkeit einer differenzierenden Sicht auf das Konzept des Adressatenzuschnitts.
In spring 2002, we celebrated the inauguration of the first German-Russian-Jewish kindergarten in Berlin. Nowadays, there are seven bilingual German-Russian kindergartens with 4 60 places and 78 bilingual kindergartens with other combinations of languages [SENBWF]. Maybe it is not enough, taking into account the large proportion o f immigrants in the population of Berlin1. And yet, much progress has been achieved, endorsing the fact that German society has begun to change its attitude towards other languages on its territory. The initial request for German monolingualism first changed into societal tolerance of multilingualism and eventually to the recognition o f the value of multilingualism. This process is a very slow one, and it is not yet complete. In my article, I would like to look at the development in the last few years of the political framework that has made possible, on the one hand, the opening of bilingual kindergartens in Berlin, and on the other hand, to consider what has hampered this process until now. I would like to emphasise three most important political spheres: linguistic, educational and integrational.
The transition between phases of activities is a practical problem which participants in an interaction have to deal with routinely. In meetings, the sequence of phases of activity is often outlined by a written agenda. However, transitions still have to be accomplished by local interactional work of the participants. In a detailed conversation analytic case study based on video-data, it is shown how participants collaboratively accomplish an emergent interactional state of affairs (a break-like activity) which differs widely from the state of affairs which was projected by awritten agenda (the next presentation), although in doing so, the participants still show their continuous orientation to the agenda. The paper argues that the reconstruction of emergent developments in interaction calls for a multimodal analysis of interaction, because the fine-grained multimodal co-ordination of bodily and verbal resources provides for opportunities of sequentially motivated, relevant next actions. These, however, can amount to emergent activity sequences, which may be at odds with the activity types which are projected by an interactional agenda or expected on behalf of some institutional routine.
Der vorliegende Beitrag soll nun diese Diskussion um Sinn, Unsinn und Definition der Kategorie "Satz" als Grundeinheit der gesprochenen Sprache nicht fortsetzen. Ich will vielmehr kurz darlegen, in welcher Weise ein traditioneller Satzbegriff m.E. für die Analyse gesprochener Sprache relevant ist, und wie er sich zu gesprächsanalytischen Kategorien wie "Turn" und "Turnkonstruktionseinheit" verhält. Dies geschieht aber nur als Voraussetzung, um sodann die traditionelle Fragerichtung umzukehren: Anstatt zu fragen, warum in Gesprächen oft nicht-sentenzielle Strukturen vorkommen, gehe ich vom Befund aus, dass ein großer Teil von Turns aus nicht-sentenziellen Strukturen besteht und frage umgekehrt, wieso in Gesprächen überhaupt Sätze (im Sinne der eingangs gegebenen klassischen Definition) verwendet werden. Den Schlüssel zur Antwort suche ich dabei in der temporalen Struktur der Äußerungsproduktion und der Position, die Sätze in Bezug auf diese einnehmen.
Based on German data from history-taking in doctor-patient interaction, the paper shows that the three basic syntactic types of questions (questions fronted by a question-word (w-questions), verb-first (V1) questions, and declarative questions) provide different opportunities for displaying understanding in medical interaction. Each syntactic questionformat is predominantly used in a different stage of topical sequences in history taking: w-questions presuppose less knowledge and are thus used to open up topical sequences; declarative questions are used to check already achieved understandings and to close topical sequences. Still, the expected scope of answers to yes/no-questions and to declarative questions is less restricted than previously thought. The paper focuses in detail on the doctors’ use of formulations as declarative questions, which are designed to make patients elaborate on already established topics, giving more details or accounting for a confirmation. Formulations often involve a shift to psychological aspects of the illness. Although patients confirm doctors’ empathetic formulations, they, however, regularly do not align with this shift, returning to the description of symptoms and to biomedical accounts instead. The study shows how displays of understanding are responded to not only in terms of correctness, but also (and more importantly) in terms of their relevance for further action.