400 Sprache
Refine
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Keywords
- Englisch (7) (remove)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (3)
- Peer-review (1)
Publisher
American English and German AI, AU observed in cognates such as Wein, wine, Haus, house are usually treated on a par, represented with the same initial vowel (cf. [ai], [au] for Am. Engl, and German [1]). Yet, acoustic measurements indicate differences as the relevant trajectories characteristically cross in Am. Engl, but not in German. These data may indicate consistency with the same initial target for these diphthongs in German, supporting the choice of the same Symbol /a/ in phonemic representation, as opposed to distinct targets (and distinct initial phonemes) in American English.
Language attitudes may be differentiated into attitudes towards speakers and attitudes towards languages. However, to date, no systematic and differentiated instrument exists that measures attitudes towards language. Accordingly, we developed, validated, and applied the Attitudes Towards Languages (AToL) scale in four studies. In Study 1, we selected 15 items for the AToL scale, which represented the three dimensions of value, sound, and structure. The following studies replicated and validated the three-factor structure and differential mean profiles along the three dimensions for different languages (a) in a more diverse German sample (Study 2), (b) in different countries (Study 3), and (c) when participants based their evaluations on speech samples (Study 4). Moreover, we investigated the relation between the AToL dimensions and stereotypic speaker evaluations. Results confirm the reliability, validity, and generalizability of the AToL scale and its incremental value to mere speaker evaluations.
This paper outlines the broad research context and rationale for a new international comparable corpus (ICC). The ICC is to be largely modelled on the text categories and their quantities the International Corpus of English with only a few changes. The corpus will initially begin with nine European languages but others may join in due course. The paper reports on those and other agreements made at the inaugural planning meeting in Prague on 22-23 June 2017. It also sets out the project’s goals for its first two years.
This article describes a series of ongoing efforts at the Stanford Literary Lab to manage a large collection of literary corpora (~40 billion words). This work is marked by a tension between two competing requirements – the corpora need to be merged together into higher-order collections that can be analyzed as units; but, at the same time, it’s also necessary to preserve granular access to the original metadata and relational organization of each individual corpus. We describe a set of data management practices that try to accommodate both of these requirements – Apache Spark is used to index data as Parquet tables on an HPC cluster at Stanford. Crucially, the approach distinguishes between what we call “canonical” and “combined” corpora, a variation on the well-established notion of a “virtual corpus” (Kupietz et al., 2014; Jakubíek et al., 2014; van Uytvanck, 2010).
Das Handbuch Europäische Sprachkritik Online liefert eine vergleichende Perspektive auf Sprachkritik in europäischen Sprachkulturen (im Speziellen auf die Sprachkritik im Deutschen, Englischen, Französischen, Italienischen und Kroatischen). In dem Handbuch werden zentrale Konzepte der Sprachkritik deskriptiv behandelt. Das Ziel ist demnach, eine Konzeptgeschichte der europäischen Sprachkritik zu präsentieren. Zum einen liefert das Handbuch einen spezifischen Blick auf die jeweiligen Sprachkulturen. Zum anderen werden diese vergleichend in den Blick genommen. Das multilinguale Handbuch erscheint periodisch in Bänden.
The shortening of linguistic expressions naturally involves some sort of correspondence between short forms and (some portion of) the respective full forms. Based mostly on data from English and Hebrew this article explores the hypothesis that such correspondence concerns necessary sameness of symbolic form, referring either to graphemic or to a specific level of phonological representation. That level indicates a degree of abstractness defined by language-specific contrastiveness (i.e. “phonemic”). Reference to written form can be shown to be highly systematic in certain contexts, including cases where full forms consist of multiple stems. Specific asymmetries pertaining to the targeting of material by correspondence (e.g. initial vs. non-initial position) appear to be alike for both types of representation, a claim supported by a study based on a nomenclature strictly confined to writing (chemical element symbols).