Semantik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (38)
- Article (33)
- Conference Proceeding (7)
- Book (4)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Review (2)
Language
- German (68)
- English (16)
- Portuguese (1)
- Russian (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (86)
Keywords
- Semantik (37)
- Deutsch (27)
- Semasiologie (8)
- Syntax (7)
- COVID-19 (6)
- Pragmatik (6)
- Sprachgebrauch (6)
- Metapher (5)
- Wortschatz (5)
- Englisch (4)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (86) (remove)
Reviewstate
Publisher
Sprachliche Zweifelsfälle kommen auf allen linguistischen Ebenen vor. Ihre Einordnung erfolgt zumeist nach Systemebene, nach Entstehungsursache oder nach lexematischer Struktur. Sprachlicher Zweifel kann auch nach intra- und interlingualen Aspekten unterschieden werden. Stehen zwei oder mehrere lexikalische Varianten zur Verfügung, kann es zu Unsicherheiten bezüglich des angemessenen Gebrauchs kommen. Nicht nur Muttersprachler*innen sind mit Schwierigkeiten konfrontiert, Zweifelsfälle stellen auch ein Problem bei der Fremdsprachenproduktion dar.
Dieser Band beschränkt sich auf lexikalisch-semantische, flexivische und wortbildungsbedingte Zweifelsfälle und führt interessierte Leser*innen in Fachliteratur und Nachschlagewerke ein. Er streift Fragen der Sprachdidaktik, der Fehler- und Variationslinguistik, denn die Auseinandersetzung mit typischen Zweifelsfällen zeigt auch das Spannungsfeld zwischen allgemeinem Usus und kodifizierter Norm, zwischen Gegenwart und Wandel, zwischen Dynamik, sprachlichem Reichtum und erlernter Bildungstradition.
Uneigentliches Reden, insbesondere die Schaffung und Verwendung von Metaphern und Metonymien, ist weit stärker sprachstrukturell lizenziert als es der kreativ-sprachspielerische Effekt vermuten lässt, der durch neue Tropen erzeugt wird. In diesem Beitrag wird es vor allem um das Konzept des paradigmatischen metaphorischen Musters gehen, dem zufolge die Wörter innerhalb eines Wortfelds ein ähnliches, auf abstrakten Merkmalen basierendes metaphorisches Potenzial entfalten. Dazu werde ich zunächst in Abschnitt 2 auf paradigmatische metonymische Muster eingehen, die in verschiedenen Kontexten und unter verschiedenen Bezeichnungen bereits häufiger untersucht wurden. In Abschnitt 3 werden grundlegende Überlegungen zur Metapher vorgestellt, und in Abschnitt 4 entwickle ich anhand verschiedener Beispiele das Konzept des metaphorischen Musters. In Abschnitt 5 wird der Zusammenhang zwischen metaphorischen Mustern und konzeptuellen Metaphern beleuchtet
The CLARIN Concept Registry (CCR) is the common semantic ground for most CMDI-based profiles to describe language-related resources in the CLARIN universe. While the CCR supports semantic interoperability within this universe, it does not extend beyond it. The flexibility of CMDI, however, allows users to use other term or concept registries when defining their metadata components. In this paper, we describe our use of schema.org, a light ontology used by many parties across disciplines.
Between classical symbolic word sense disambiguation (wsd) using explicit deep semantic representations of sentences and texts and statistical wsd using word co-occurrence information, there is a recent tendency towards mediating methods. Similar to so-called lightweight semantics (Marek, 2009) we suggest to only make sparse use of semantic information. We describe an approximation model based upon flat underspecified discourse representation structures (FUDRSs, cf. Eberle, 2004) that weighs knowledge about context structure, lexical semantic restrictions and interpretation preferences. We give a catalogue of guidelines for human annotation of texts by corresponding indicators. Using this, the reliability of an analysis tool that implements the model can be tested with respect to annotation precision and disambiguation prediction and how both can be improved by bootstrapping the knowledge of the system using corpus information. For the balanced test corpus considered the recognition rate of the preferred reading is 80-90% (depending on the smoothing of parse errors).
Binäre Strukturen mit nominalem Kopf treten in verschiedenen Formen auf, unter anderem als Substantiv mit präpositionalem Attribut, mit Adjektivattribut, mit attributiver Genitiv-NP oder als Kompositum. Da die Relation zwischen Kopf und Nicht-Kopf in solchen Nominalstrukturen anders als im Verbbereich meist nicht durch syntaktische und semantische Valenzeigenschaften des Kopfs gesteuert ist, bringen solche Strukturen zunächst einmal interpretatorische Uneindeutigkeiten mit sich, die besonders deutlich werden, wenn die beiden verbundenen lexikalischen Elemente keinen konventionalisierten semantischen oder enzyklopädischen Zusammenhang erschließen lassen. Der Interpretationsspielraum der vier Strukturtypen ist dabei unterschiedlich groß.
In English, past tense stative clauses embedded under a past-marked attitude verb, like Eric thought that Kalina was sick, can receive two interpretations, differing on when the state of the complement is understood to hold, i.e. Kalina’s sickness precedes the time of Eric’s thinking (backward-shifted reading), or Kalina is sick at the time of Eric’s thinking (simultaneous reading). As is well known, the availability of the simultaneous reading—also called Sequence of tense (SOT)—is subject to cross-linguistic variation. Non-SOT languages only allow for the backward-shifted interpretation. This cross-linguistic variation has been analysed in two main ways in the literature: a structural approach, connecting the availability of the simultaneous reading in a language to a syntactic mechanism that allows the embedded past not to be interpreted; and an implicature approach, which links the absence of such a reading to the presence of a “cessation” implicature associated with past tense. We report a series of experiments on Polish, which is commonly classified as a non-SOT language. First, we investigate the interpretation of complement clauses embedded under past-marked attitude verbs in Polish and English. This investigation revealed a difference between these two languages in the availability of simultaneous interpretations for past-under-past complement clauses, albeit not as large as a binary distinction between SOT and non-SOT languages would lead us to expect. We then address the question of whether the lower acceptability we observe for simultaneous readings in Polish might be due to an embedded cessation implicature. On the way to address this question, we show that in simple matrix clauses, Polish gives rise to the same cessation inference as English. Then we investigate Polish past-under-past sentences in positive and negative contexts, comparing their potential cessation implicature to the exclusive implicature of disjunction. In our results, we found that the latter was endorsed more often in positive than in negative contexts, as expected, while the cessation implicature was endorsed overall very little, with no difference across contexts. The disanalogy between the disjunction and the temporal cases, and the insensitivity of the latter to monotonicity, are a challenge for the implicature approach, and cast doubts on associating SOT phenomena with implicatures.
In semantic fieldwork, it is common to use a language other than the language under investigation for presenting linguistic materials to the language consultants, e.g. discourse contexts in acceptability judgment tasks. Previous works commenting on the use of a ‘meta-language’ or ‘language of wider communication’ in this sense (AnderBois and Henderson 2015; Matthewson 2004) have argued that this practice is not methodologically inferior to the exclusive use of the object language for elicitation, but that the fieldworker needs to be alert to potential influences of the meta-language or, indeed, the object language, on the elicited judgments. Thus, the choice of a language for presenting discourse contexts is an integral component of fieldwork methodology. This paper provides a research report with a focus on this component. It describes a multilingual fieldwork setting offering several potential meta-languages, which the fieldworker and the consultants master to varying degrees. The choice of the languages in this setting is discussed with regard to methodological, social and practical considerations and related to selected, more general methodological questions regarding semantic fieldwork practice.
In conversation, speakers need to plan and comprehend language in parallel in order to meet the tight timing constraints of turn taking. Given that language comprehension and speech production planning both require cognitive resources and engage overlapping neural circuits, these two tasks may interfere with one another in dialogue situations. Interference effects have been reported on a number of linguistic processing levels, including lexicosemantics. This paper reports a study on semantic processing efficiency during language comprehension in overlap with speech planning, where participants responded verbally to questions containing semantic illusions. Participants rejected a smaller proportion of the illusions when planning their response in overlap with the illusory word than when planning their response after the end of the question. The obtained results indicate that speech planning interferes with language comprehension in dialogue situations, leading to reduced semantic processing of the incoming turn. Potential explanatory processing accounts are discussed.
In this paper, the meaning and processing of the German conditional connectives (CCs) such as wenn ‘if’ and nur wenn ‘only if’ are investigated. In Experiment 1, participants read short scenarios containing a conditional sentence (i.e., If P, Q.) with wenn/nur wenn ‘if/only if’ and a confirmed or negated antecedent (i.e., P/not-P), and subsequently completed the final sentence about Q (with or without negation). In Experiment 2, participants rated the truth or falsity of the consequent Q after reading a conditional sentence with wenn or nur wenn and a confirmed or negated antecedent (i.e., If P, Q. P/not-P. // Therefore, Q?). Both experiments showed that neither wenn nor nur wenn were interpreted as biconditional CCs. Modus Ponens (If P, Q. P. // Therefore, Q) was validated for wenn, whereas it was not validated in the case of nur wenn. While Denial of the Antecedent (If P, Q. not-P. // Therefore, not-Q.) was validated in the case of nur wenn, it was not validated for wenn. The same method was used to test wenn vs. unter der Bedingung, dass ‘on condition that’ in Experiment 3, and wenn vs. vorausgesetzt, dass ‘provided that’ in Experiment 4. Experiment 5, using Affirmation of the Consequent (If P, Q. Q. // Therefore, P.) to test wenn vs. nur wenn replicated the results of Experiment 2. Taken together, the results show that in German, unter der Bedingung, dass is the most likely candidate of biconditional CCs whereas all others are not biconditional. The findings, in particular of nur wenn not being semantically biconditional, are discussed based on available formal analyses of conditionals.