Sprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Gegenwartssprache
Refine
Year of publication
Has Fulltext
- yes (34)
Keywords
- Deutsch (6)
- Rezension (6)
- Linguistik (5)
- Tagungsbericht (5)
- Deutschland <DDR> (4)
- Fachsprache (4)
- Interaktion (4)
- Sprachgebrauch (4)
- Diskursanalyse (3)
- Gegenwartssprache (3)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (34) (remove)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (34) (remove)
Publisher
- Bibliographisches Institut (9)
- Erich Schmidt Verlag (5)
- Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache (GfdS) (5)
- Erich Schmidt (3)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (3)
- Vieweg (2)
- De Gruyter (1)
- Diesterweg (1)
- Franz Steiner Verlag (1)
- Springer VS (1)
Der Artikel beschreibt die Entwicklung eines sprachlichen Mythos, einer in Sprache entwickelten und gefassten, zu Propagandazwecken (miss)gebrauchten Konstruktion von Wirklichkeit, die nicht nur das Wirklichkeitsbild einer Epoche prägte, sondern in starkem Maße auch in die Wirklichkeit der davon betroffenen Menschen eingriff und diese veränderte. Die Legende vom Dolchstoß, vom hinterrücks verübten Mord am deutschen Frontsoldaten, vom Verrat aus den eigenen Reihen, wird von seinen Vertretern dazu benutzt, die eigene Verantwortung für die Niederlage der Deutschen im 1. Weltkrieg auf den politischen Gegner abzuwälzen, um diesen nicht nur politisch, sondern auch gesellschaftlich zu diffamieren. Doch war diese Legende kein spontanes Produkt einer von Chaos geprägten Nachkriegszeit, sondern sie gehörte bereits zum politischen Strategiespiel einer in der Bismarckzeit eingeführten Propagandaschlacht. In ihr wurde bereits die Erwartungshaltung geschürt, dass in der Stunde der Not Sozialdemokraten, Juden, Katholiken und Freimaurer das Vaterland nicht nur im Stich lassen, sondern es aus fehlender nationaler Gesinnung verraten würden. Die Sprachlichkeit dieser Vorgänge hervorzuheben, ist das besondere methodische und theoretische Anliegen des Artikels.
This paper investigates emergent pseudo-coordination in spoken German. In a corpus-based study, seven verbs in the first conjunct are analyzed regarding the degree of semantic bleaching and the development of subjective or aspectual meaning components. Moreover, it is shown that each verb shows distinct tendencies for co-ocurrences, especially with deictic adverbs in the first conjunct and with specific verbs and verb classes in the second conjunct. It is argued that pseudo-coordination is originally motivated by the need for ‘chunking’ in unplanned speech and that it is still prominently used in this function in German, in contrast to languages in which pseudo-coordination is grammaticalized further.
In this contribution we analyse how mobile device users in face-to-face communication jointly negotiate the boundaries and action spaces between digital and non-digital, shared and individual, public and private. Instead of conceptualising digital and face-to-face, i. e., non-digital, communication as separate, more recent research emphasises that social practices relying on mobile devices increasingly connect physical and virtual communicative spaces. Using multimodal conversation analysis, we investigate the situated use of mobile devices and media in social interaction. Excerpts from videotaped everyday conversations illustrate how participants frame their smartphone use in the presence of others, such as when looking at digital pictures, or when recording voice messages. A detailed analysis of verbal and embodied conduct shows how participants negotiate and interpret the connection or separation of digital and non-digital activities and possible forms of participation within these. (Digital) publicness or privacy are therefore to be understood as an interactive accomplishment.
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.