Grammatik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2010 (25) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (15)
- Part of a Book (7)
- Book (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (25)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (25)
Keywords
- Deutsch (20)
- Wortbildung (4)
- Grammatik (3)
- Grammis (3)
- Informationssystem (3)
- Semantik (3)
- German (2)
- Kasus (2)
- Logische Partikel (2)
- Satzverbindung (2)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (9)
- Peer-Review (6)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (7)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (6)
- Lang (2)
- Schmidt (2)
- Buske (1)
- Ege Üniversitesi Matbaası (1)
- Erich Schmidt Verlag (1)
- Schneider Verlag Hohengehren (1)
- Stauffenburg (1)
- Univerzita Hradec Králové (1)
Dieser Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über CoDII, die Collection of Distributionally Idiosyncratic Items. CoDII ist eine elektronische Sammlung verschiedener Untergruppen lexikalischer Elemente, die sich durch idiosynkratische Distribution auszeichnen. Das bedeutet, dass sich die Verteilung dieser Lexeme im Text nicht alleine aufgrund ihrer syntaktischen Kategorie Vorhersagen lässt. Die Methoden, die in der Entwicklung von CoDII angewandt werden, greifen über traditionelle Fachgrenzen hinaus und umfassen Korpuslinguistik, Computerlinguistik, Phraseologie und theoretische Sprachwissenschaft. Ein wichtiger Schwerpunkt unserer Diskussion liegt auf der Darstellung, inwiefern die in CoDII gesammelten, annotierten und unter anderem mit Suchwerkzeugen abfragbaren Daten dazu beitragen können, die linguistische Theoriebildung durch die Bereitstellung sorgfältig aufbereiteter Datensammlungen bei der Überprüfung ihrer Datengrundlage zu unterstützen.
To reach even language users not acquainted to the use of grammars the Institut für Deutsche Sprache in Mannheim (Germany) looked for new ways to handle grammatical problems. Instead of confronting users with abstractions frequent difficulties of German grammar are introduced in form of exemplary questions like „Which form should be used or preferred: Anfang dieses Jahre or Anfang diesen Jahres? Looking through the long list of such questions even laymen may find solutions of grammatical problems they might not be able to formulate as such.
Grammatiktheoretische Forschung, das hat die jüngste IDS-Jahrestagung wieder einmal plastisch vor Augen geführt, muss gedacht werden als zähes Ringen zweier grundsätzlich antagonistischer Prinzipien: Der reichhaltigen Fülle sprachlicher Okkurrenzen, deren gründlicher Auslotung ein beträchtlicher Teil der gegenwärtigen sprachtheoretisch und sprachtechnologisch ausgerichteten Anstrengung gewidmet ist, muss stets der Versuch gegenüberstehen, diese überbordende Varianz abstrahierend und generalisierend einzudämmen – ohne dabei die empirischen Befunde übermäßig und unzulässig zu nivellieren.
Perhaps the biggest challenge in derivational morphology is to reconcile morphological idiosyncrasy with semantic regularity. How can it be explained that words with dead affixes and irregulär allomorphy can nonetheless exhibit straightforward and stable semantic relations to their etymological bases (cf. strength ‘property of being strong’, obedience ‘act of obeying’, ‘property of being obedient’)? Theories based on the idea of capturing regularity in terms of synthetic rules for building up complex words out of morphemes along with rules for interpreting such structures in a compositional fashion have not made - and arguably cannot make - sense of this phenomenon. Taking the perspective of the learner in acquisition, I propose an alternative approach to meaning assignment based, not on syntagmatic relations among their constituent morphemes, but on paradigmatic relations between whole words. This approach not only explains the conditions under which meaning relations between words are expected to be stable but also accounts for another notorious mystery in derivational morphology, the frequent occurrence of total synonymy among affixes, as opposed to words.
Grammars even trying to be as comprehensible as possible hardly avoid using technical terms unknown to novices. To overcome these inconveniencies, the grammatical information system grammis of the Institut für Deutsche Sprache incorporated a glossary specialized on terms used within the system. This glossary - actually named Grammatische Grundbegriffe (elementary terms of grammar) and tied by hyperlinks to technical terms in the core grammar' of grammis - offers short and simple explanations mainly by means of exemplification. The idea is to provide the users with provisional understanding to get along while following the main themes they are interested in. Explicitly, the glossary is not a stand-alone dictionary of grammatical terms, and it should not be regarded as one.
This article evaluates the terminological component (TC) of the grammis portal on German grammar developed by the Institut für Deutsche Sprache. The TC is included into grammis to facilitate nonlinguists‘ access to the main components of the portal: Grammar in questions and answers, and the Systematic Grammar. The TC thus has the potential to be an extremely useful and important grammis component. We discuss to what extend the TC achieves its goals, and make some suggestions how it could be improved. The most important aspects considered in the evaluation are: (a) TC completeness and consistency, (b) accessibility and usability of definitions and index, (c) integration of the TC with the overall system.
The possibility to search electronically very large corpora of texts has opened up ways in which we can truly evaluate the rules through which grammarians have tried and continue to try to simulate natural languages. However, the possibility to handle incredibly large amounts of texts might lead to problems with the assessment of certain phenomena that are hardly ever represented in those corpora and yet, have always been regarded as grammatically correct elements of a given language. In German, typical phenomena of this kind are forms like betrögest or erwögest, i.e. second person singular of the so-called strong verbs in the subjunctive mood. Should we see them merely as grammarians’ inventions? Before doing so, we should reconsider the nature of these phenomena. They may appear to be isolated word forms but, in fact, are compact realizations of syntactic constructions, and it is the frequency of these constructions that should be evaluated, not the frequency of their specific realizations.
Connectives are conjunctions, prepositions, adverbs and other particles which share the function of encoding semantic relations between sentences, or rather, between semantic objects some of which can be meanings of sentences. The relata linked by any such relation will fall into one of four distinct categories: they will be physical objects, states of affairs, propositions, or pragmatic options (the atoms of human interaction). Physical objects constitute the conceptual domain of space, states of affairs the domain of time, propositions the epistemic domain, and pragmatic options the deontic domain. The relations encodable in any of these domains can be divided into four basic types: similarity relations, situating relations, conditional relations, and causal relations. Conceptual domains and types of relations define the universe of possible connections between semantic objects.
Connectives differ as to the interpretations they permit in terms of conceptual domains and types of relations. Very few connectives are specialized on relata of one certain category and relations of one certain type. Possible examples in German are später (‘later on’) and zwischenzeitlich (‘in the meantime’), which encode situating relations between states of affairs. Other connectives are specialized on relata of one certain category, but are underspecified with respect to the type of relation. An example is German sobald (‘as soon as’), which can only connect states of affairs, but accepts situating, conditional and causal readings. Connectives of a third group are specialized on relations of a certain type, but are underspecified with respect to the category of the relata. Examples of this kind are German weil (‘because’) and trotzdem (‘nevertheless’), which encode causal relations, but accept states of affairs, propositions and pragmatic options as their relata. Connectives of a fourth group are underspecified both for the category of relata and the type of relation. An example is German da (‘there’), which accepts relata of any category and allows for situating, conditional and causal readings. Connectives like und (‘and’) and oder (‘or’) exhibit an even higher degree of under specification, in that they allow for all kinds of relations and relata.