Kontrastive Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (71) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (71)
Keywords
- Deutsch (58)
- Kontrastive Grammatik (16)
- Kontrastive Linguistik (12)
- Japanisch (9)
- Rumänisch (6)
- Polnisch (5)
- Sprachvergleich (5)
- Sprachvergleich <Kontrastive Linguistik> (5)
- Verb (5)
- kontrastive Grammatik (5)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (30)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (19)
- Postprint (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (42)
- Peer-Review (8)
Publisher
- Schwann (17)
- de Gruyter (15)
- Groos (6)
- iudicium (6)
- Narr (5)
- IDS-Verlag (4)
- Lang (4)
- Peter Lang (3)
- Dr. Kovač (2)
- ATUT / Neisse (1)
Interactants who encounter co-participant conduct which they find to be socio-normatively problematic or troublesome are faced with a range of choices. First and foremost, this includes the issue of whether to directly address it, or to simply ‘let it pass’ (at least for now) (Emerson/Messinger 1977). In the case of the former, the issue then becomes how to address it. Across the various ways in which participants can pragmatically engage with what they perceive to be transgressive or untoward behavior (e.g., Pomerantz 1978; Schegloff 1988b; Dersley/Wootton 2000; Günthner 2000; Bolden/Robinson 2011; Potter/Hepburn 2020; see also Rodriguez 2022), they sometimes meta-pragmatically formulate the co-participant’s doings in terms of specific actions. Such action descriptions are necessarily selective (Sacks 1963; Schegloff 1972, 1988a; Sidnell/Barnes 2013): They foreground certain aspects of the co-participant’s conduct, while backgrounding others, and thus contribute to publically construeing the formulated conduct in particular ways (Jayyusi 1993), viz. as socio-normatively problematic, transgressive or untoward, and interactionally accountable (Robinson 2016; Sidnell 2017).
Any bilingual dictionary is contrastive by nature, as it documents linguistic information between language pairs. However, the design and compilation of most bilingual dictionaries is often no more than mere lists of lexical or semantic equivalents. In internet forums, one can observe a huge interest in acquiring relevant knowledge about specific lexical items or pairs that are prone to comparison in a more comprehensive manner as they may pose lexical semantic challenges. In particular, these often concern easily confused pairs (e.g. false friends or paronyms) and new terms increasingly travelling between languages in news and social media (Šetka-Čilić/Ilić Plauc 2021). With regard to English and German, the fundamental comparative principles upon which contrastive guides should be build are either absent, or specialised contrastive dictionaries simply do not exist, e.g. comprehensive descriptive resources for false friends, paronyms, protologisms or neologisms (see Gouws/Prinsloo/de Schryver 2004). As a result, users turn to electronic resources such as Google translate, blogs and language forums for help. For example, it is English words such as muscular which have two German translations options.
These are two confusables muskulär and muskulös both of which exhibit a different semantic profile. German sensitiv/sensibel and their English formal counterparts sensitive/sensible are false friends. However, these terms are highly polysemous in both languages and have semantic features in common. Their full meaning spectrum is hardly captured in bilingual dictionaries to allow for a full comparison. Translating protologisms such as German Doppelwumms as well as more established new words is one of the most challenging problems. Currently, German neologisms such as Klimakleber are translated as climate glue (instead of climate activist glueing him-/herself onto objects) by online tools, simply causing mistakes and contextual distortion. Most challenges users face today are well-known (e.g. Rets 2016). New terms are often unregistered in dictionaries and it is often impossible to make appropriate choices between two or more (commonly misused) words between two languages (e.g. Benzehra 2007). These are all relevant problems to translators and language learners alike (e.g González Ribao 2019).
This paper calls for the implication of insights from contrastive lexicology into modern bilingual lexicography. To turn dictionaries into valuable resources and in order to create productive strategies in a learning environment, the practice of writing dictionaries requires a critical re-assessment. Furthermore, the full potential of electronic contrastive resources needs to be recognised and put into practice. After all, monolingual German lexicography has started to reflect on how users’ needs can be accounted for in specific comparative linguistic situations. Some of these ideas can be comfortably extended to bilingual reference guides. On the one hand, this paper will deliver a critical account of some English-German/German-English dictionaries and touch on the shortcomings of contemporary bilingual lexicography. On the other hand, with the help of fictitious resources I will demonstrate contrastive structures as focal points of consultations which answer some of the more frequent language questions more reliably. Among others, I will explain how we need to build user-friendly dictionaries to allow for translating false friends or easily confusable words from the source language into its target language efficiently. With regard to neologisms, I will show how discursive descriptions and definitions that are more elaborate can support language learners to learn about necessary extra-linguistic knowledge. Overall, this could improve the role of specialised dictionaries in the teaching or translating process (cf. Miliç/Sadri/Glušac 2019).
The International Comparable Corpus (ICC) (Kirk/Čermáková 2017; Čermáková et al. 2021) is an open initiative which aims to improve the empirical basis for contrastive linguistics by compiling comparable corpora for many languages and making them as freely available as possible as well as providing tools with which they can easily be queried and analysed. In this contribution we present the first release of written language parts of the ICC which includes corpora for Chinese, Czech, English, German, Irish (partly), and Norwegian. Each of the released corpora contains 400k words distributed over 14 different text categories according to the ICC specifications. Our poster covers the design basics of the ICC, its TEI encoding, a demonstration of using the ICC via different query tools, and an outlook on future plans.
Similar to the European Reference Corpus EuReCo (Kupietz et al. 2020), ICC follows the approach of reusing existing linguistic resources wherever possible in order to cover as many languages as possible with realistic effort in as short a time as possible. In contrast to EuReCo, however, comparable corpus pairs are not defined dynamically in the usage phase, but the compositions of the corpora are fixed in the ICC design. The approaches are thus complementary in this respect. The design principles and composition of the ICC are based on those of the International Corpus of English (ICE) (Greenbaum (ed.) 1996), with the deviation that the ICC includes the additional text category blog post and excludes spoken legal texts (see Čermáková et al. 2021 for details). ICC’s fixed-design approach has the advantage that all single-language corpora in the ICC have the same composition with respect to the selected text types and that this guarantees that the selected broad spectrum of potential influencing variables for linguistic variation is always represented. The disadvantage, however, is that this can only be achieved for quite small corpora and that the generalisability of comparative findings based on the ICC corpora will often need to be checked on larger monolingual corpora or translation corpora (Čermáková/Ebeling/Oksefjell Ebeling forthcoming). Arguing that such issues with comparability and representativeness are inevitable, in one way or the other, and need to be dealt with, our poster will discuss and exemplify the text selections in more detail.
In this presentation I show first results from an ongoing study about syntactic complexity of sanctioning turns in spoken language. This study is part of a larger project on sanctioning of misconduct in social interaction in different European languages (English, German, Italian and Polish). For the study I use video recordings of different everyday settings (family breakfasts, board game interactions and car rides) with three or four participants. These data come from the Parallel European Corpus of Informal Interaction (Kornfeld/Küttner/Zinken 2023; Küttner et al. submitted). I focus on sanctioning turns with more than one turn-constructional unit (see among others for TCUs: Sacks/Schegloff/Jefferson 1974; Clayman 2013). The study asks how often TCUs are linked to each other in the different languages, for what function, and how language diversity enters into this. Note that complex sanctioning turns do not always come as complex sentences.
In many European languages, propositional arguments (PAs) can be realized as different types of structures. Cross-linguistically, complex structures with PAs show a systematic correlation between the strength of the semantic bond and the syntactic union (cf. Givón 2001; Wurmbrand/Lohninger 2023). Also, different languages show similarities with respect to the (lexical) licensing of different PAs (cf. Noonan 1985; Givón 2001; Cristofaro 2003 on different predicate types). However, on a more fine-grained level, a variation across languages can be observed both with respect to the syntactic-semantic properties of PAs as well as to their licensing and usage. This presentation takes a multi-contrastive view of different types of PAs as syntactic subjects and objects by looking at five European languages: EN, DE, IT, PL and HU. Our goal is to identify the parameters of variation in the clausal domain with PAs and by this to contribute to a better understanding of the individual language systems on the one hand and the nature of the linguistic variation in the clausal domain on the other hand. Phenomena and Methodology: We investigate the following types of PAs: direct object (DO) clauses (1), prepositional object (PO) clauses (2), subject clauses (3), and nominalizations (4, 5). Additionally, we discuss clause union phenomena (6, 7). The analyzed parameters include among others finiteness, linear position of the PA, (non) presence of a correlative element, (non) presence of a complementizer, lexical-semantic class of the embedding verb. The phenomena are analyzed based on corpus data (using mono- and multilingual corpora), experimental data (acceptability judgement surveys) or introspective data.
Dieser Beitrag beschreibt die Motivation und Ziele hinter der Initiative Europäisches Referenzkorpus EuReCo. Ausgehend von den Desiderata, die sich aufgrund der Defizite verfügbarer Forschungsdaten wie monolinguale Korpora, Parallelkorpora und Vergleichskorpora für den Sprachvergleich ergeben, werden die bisherigen und die laufenden Arbeiten im Rahmen von EuReCo präsentiert und anhand vergleichender deutsch-rumänischer Kookkurrenzanalysen neue Perspektiven für kontrastive Korpuslinguistik, die die EuReCo-Initiative öffnet, skizziert.
Kontrastive Korpuslinguistik versteht sich als eine Bezeichnung für sprachvergleichende Studien, deren Ergebnisse mit Analysen sprachlicher Daten erreicht und empirisch fundiert sind. Die Bezeichnung contrastive corpus linguistics für eine neue, sich entwickelnde Disziplin wurde 1996 von Karin Aijmer und Bengt Altenberg (Schmied 2009: 1142) eingeführt. Der Einsatz der sprachlichen Korpora bei der Beschreibung kontrastiver Studien bedeutet in den 1990er-Jahren für die kontrastive Linguistik eine Wiederbelebung, nachdem die weit gesteckten Ziele und Hoffnungen in den 50er- und 60er-Jahren, die mit der Fremdsprachendidaktik zusammenhingen, vor etwa 50 Jahren aufgegeben wurden.
Kontrastive Korpuslinguistik
(2022)
Adjektive und adjektivisch gebrauchte Partizipien als Konstituenten von Nominalgruppen werden in den Grammatiken des Deutschen und des Italienischen verallgemeinernd unter die Attribute zum Nomen gerechnet. Weithin gelten sie unter diesen sogar als prototypisch. Der vorliegende Aufsatz untersucht ihr Flexionsverhalten, ihre Linearstellung, ihre Bedeutungsbeiträge, ihren Konstituentenstatus und ihre informationeile Kennzeichnung. Er führt zu dem Ergebnis, dass die terminologische Tradition in beiden Sprachen grammatische Unterschiede verdeckt, die mehr Aufmerksamkeit verdienen würden. Die Funktionen von Adjektiven in der Nominalgruppe sind faktisch viel weniger einheitlich, als der Attributbegriff insinuiert. Unterschiede sollten in der Beschreibung differenzierter herausgearbeitet werden. Ihre kontrastive Untersuchung ist nicht nur für Grammatiker von Interesse, sondern auch fiir Lehrende des Deutschen und des Italienischen als Fremdsprache sowie der Übersetzung zwischen beiden Sprachen. Sie kann Schwierigkeiten, die im Sprach- und Übersetzungsstudium bekannt sind, systematisieren und erklären und ihre didaktische Bearbeitung erleichtern.
We present zu-excessive structures like Otto ist zu schwer ‘Otto is too heavy’ as instantiations of comparatives that have been reflexivized. Comparatives express asymmetric relations between distinguished referents, but reflexivization identifies argument places (or reduces two argument places to one), leading to a Symmetrie relation. Reflexivization is thus in conflict with the asymmetry property of comparatives and leads to an intermediate semantic representation that is con- tradictory. Two experiments substantiate that zu-excessives share this property with privative adjective and animal-for-statue constructions that similarly give rise to contradictory semantics. The processing of any of the constructions mentioned yields a positivity in the event-related-potential signature characteristic of concep- tual reorganization; however, the observed positivity occurs earlier in the case of zu-excessives than in the other cases. We propose this difference is due to zu signalling the mandatory preparation for an ensuing repair rather than reflecting the repair Operation itself that involves manipulating the Standard of comparison, coded elsewhere in the String (if at all).