Refine
Document Type
- Article (33)
- Part of a Book (15)
- Master's Thesis (2)
- Other (2)
- Postprint (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
- Moving Images (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (56) (remove)
Keywords
- 2001 (1)
- Brand Identification (1)
- Cold War (1)
- Communication (1)
- Conversation Patterns (1)
- Dialogstrukturen (1)
- Internet (1)
- Kalter Krieg (1)
- Kommunikation (1)
- Korea (1)
Institute
- Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (56) (remove)
"Unavoidably side by side"
(2011)
Content: 1. Objectives 2. Sociohistorical Background 2.1. The Cornish 2.2. The Welsh 2.3. The Bretons 3. Characteristics of the Brythonic Naming System 3.1. Type 1 Names: Patronymic Lineage 3.2. Type 2 Names: Geographic Origin or Place of Residence 3.3. Type 3 Names: Occupational Activities (Generally Linked to Peasantry) 3.4. Type 4 Names: Physical Characteristics, Moral Flaws 3.5. Type 5 Names: Epithets Relating to Character, Titles of Nobility, etc. 3.6. Epithets Containing References to Victory, War, Warriors, Weapons 3.7. Epithets Containing References to Courage, Strength, Impetuousness and War-like Animals 3.8. Epithets Containing References to Honorific Titles, Noble Lineage, Social Status and Aristocratic Values 4. Summary
Conventional wisdom since the earliest studies of Irish English has attributed much of what is distinctive about this variety to the influence of the Irish language. From the early philologists (Joyce 1910, van Hamel 1912) through the classic works of Henry (1957, 1958) and Bliss (1979) down to present-day linguistic orientations (e.g. Corrigan 2000 a, Filppula 1999, Fiess 2000, Hickey 2000, Todd 1999, and others), the question of Irish-language influence may be disputed on points of detail, but remains a central focus for most studies in the field. It is not our intention to argue with this consensus, nor to examine specific points of grammar in detail, but, rather, to suggest an approach to this question which (a) takes for its empirical base a sample of the standard language, rather than dialectal material or the sample sentences so beloved of many papers on the subject, and (b) understands Celticity not just in terms of the formal transfer of grammatical features, but as an indexical feature of language use, i.e. one in which English in Ireland is used in such a way as to point to the Irish language as a linguistic and cultural reference point. In this sense, our understanding of Celticity is not entirely grammatical, but relies as well on Pierce’s notion of indexicality (see Greenlee 1973), by which semiotic signs ‘point to’ other signs. Our focus in assessing Celticity, then, derives in the first instance from an examination of the International Corpus of English (ICE). We have recently completed the publication of the Irish component of ICE (ICE-Ireland), a machinereadable corpus of over 1 million words of speech and writing gathered from a range of contexts determined by the protocols of the global International Corpus of English project. The international nature of this corpus project makes for ready comparisons with other varieties of English, and in this paper we will focus on comparisons with the British corpus, ICE-GB. For references on ICE generally, see Greenbaum 1996; for ICE-GB, see especially Nelson, Wallis and Aarts 2002; and for ICE-Ireland, see papers such as Kirk, Kallen, Lowry & Rooney (2003), Kirk & Kallen (2005), and Kallen & Kirk (2007). Our first approach will be to look for signs of overt Celticity in those grammatical features of Irish English which have been put forward as evidence of Celtic transfer (or of the reinforcement between Celtic and non-Celtic historical sources); our second approach will be to look at non-grammatical ways in which texts in ICEIreland become indexical of Celticity by less structural means such as loanwords, code-switching, and covert reference using ‘standard’ English in ways that are specific to Irish usage. We argue that, at least within the standard language as we have observed it, Celticity is at once less obvious than a reading of the dialectal literature might suggest and, at the same time, more pervasive than a purely grammatical approach would imply.
Content: 1. Perfect to Preterite? 2. A Past Grammaticalisation Path for Be after V-ing 2.1. Perfect Grams and Sources 2.2. Perfect Distinctions and Perfect-Preterite Evolution 3. Semantic History of Past-Time Be After V-ing 3.1. Perfect Uses, 1670-1800 3.2. Perfect Uses, 1801-2000 4. Temporal Adverbials and Uses of Be After V-ing, 1701-2000 4.1. Hodiernal Uses 4.2. Preterite Uses 4.3. How Far Is It after Coming? 5. Conclusion
Celtic and Afro-Asiatic
(2007)
Extract: [...]It is not remarkable that structural similarities between the Insular Celtic and some Afro-Asiatic1 languages continue to exert a fascination on many people. Research into any language may be enlightening with regard to the understanding of all languages, and languages that show similar features are particularly likely to provide useful information. It is remarkable that the structural similarities between Insular Celtic and Afro-Asiatic languages continue to be interpreted as diagnostic of some sort of special relationship between them; some sort of affinity or mutual affiliation that goes beyond the fact that they are two groups of human languages. This paper investigates again the fallacious nature of the arguments for the Afro-Asiatic/Insular Celtic contact theory (henceforth AA/IC contact theory). It takes its point of departure from Gensler (1993). That work is as yet unpublished, but has had considerable resonance. Such statements as the following indicate the importance that has been attached to the work: “After the studies of Morris-Jones, Pokorny, Wagner2 and Gensler it seems impossible to deny the special links between Insular Celtic and Afro-Asiatic” (Jongeling 2000:64). And the ideas in question have been propagated in the popular scientific press,3 with the usual corollary that it is these ideas that are perceived by the interested but non-specialist public as being at the cutting edge of sound new research, when in fact they may simply be recycled ideas of a discredited theory. For these reasons it is appropriate to subject Gensler’s unpublished work to detailed critique.4 In particular, with regard to the twenty features of affinity between Insular Celtic and Afro-Asiatic which Gensler investigated, it will be shown (yet again, in some cases): [...]
Mit der Entwicklung des Social Web, also einem Internet, in dem sich immer mehr Nutzer untereinander auf Kommunikationsplattformen wie Facebook, in Foren und Bewertungsplattformen und auf Microblogging-Diensten wie Twitter austauschen, überschlagen sich Kommunikationsspezialisten mit Ratschlägen für Unternehmen, wie sie die Kommunikation im Internet insbesondere in kritischen Situationen zu gestalten hätten, und diverse Dienstleister bieten die Beobachtung (Monitoring) der Kommunikation über Unternehmen im Internet an. Dieser Entwicklung folgend beschäftigt sich diese Arbeit mit der Beschreibung und Analyse der Kommunikationssituation am Beispiel der „Locationgate“- Affäre (Apple-iPhone-Tracking): Schwerpunkt dieser Arbeit ist die Betrachtung der Kommunikation über Apple in einer für das Unternehmen zumindest äußerlich kritisch erscheinenden Situation. Untersucht wird die Diskussion des medienwirksamen Ereignisses durch Leser1 in Online-Foren zu Artikeln über den Vorfall. Bei anfänglicher Brisanz, die bei dem Thema iPhone-Tracking zu erwarten war, zeigte sich recht schnell, dass zwar in den Leserkommentaren sehr viel und auch sehr kontrovers diskutiert wurde – jedoch für die Marke Apple keine echte Gefahr zu drohen schien, denn die Diskussionen schienen vor allem unter den Nutzern als Fans oder Gegner (Hater) der Marke Apple geführt zu werden. Eine erste quantitative Untersuchung war von einer Auseinandersetzung mit den Möglichkeiten des Monitoring der (Social-Media-)Internetkommunikation über eine Marke/ein Unternehmen, das – meist automatisiert, auf quantitativen Analysen basierend – angeboten wird, motiviert. Diese ergab, dass sich relativ geringe Reaktionen zum Positiven oder Negativen hin auf die Unternehmenskommunikation feststellen ließen. Eine erste qualitative Datensichtung ergab, dass negative Lexeme in den Kommentaren sich nicht unbedingt auf die Marke Apple oder das iPhone beziehen, sondern gegen andere Kommentatoren gerichtet sind, und dass unter den Schreibern ein reger Dialog stattzufinden scheint, der auf starken Gegenpositionen basiert. Somit war eine kritische Situation für die Marke Apple in den Foren nicht gegeben. Aus diesen Betrachtungen ergibt sich die Fragestellung, warum die Unternehmenskommunikation in den Foren kaum auf Interesse stößt bzw. was dort stattdessen stattfindet. Hierzu wird analysiert, wer wie oft und mit wem kommuniziert, indem Dialogparameter wie Länge und Häufigkeit per Schreiber im Gesamtkorpus statistisch betrachtet und die Dialogstrukturen detailliert herausgearbeitet und visualisiert werden. Aufbauend darauf wird auf inhaltlicher Ebene qualitativ beleuchtet, worüber sich die Schreiber insbesondere bezogen auf das Markenimage von Apple austauschen. Darauf aufbauend wird beleuchtet, inwieweit sich eine Markenidentifikation und damit eine Verteidigung der Marke Apple in den Kommentaren ausmachen lässt.