Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (1096) (remove)
Language
Keywords
- Migration (14)
- Religion (11)
- interkulturelle Missverständnisse (11)
- migration (11)
- religion (11)
- religiöses Leben (11)
- confusions and misunderstandings (10)
- Verwaltung (5)
- Deutschland (4)
- Germany (4)
Institute
- Bürgerliches Recht (226)
- Öffentliches Recht (102)
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (101)
- Institut für Romanistik (80)
- Historisches Institut (73)
- Strafrecht (73)
- Sozialwissenschaften (46)
- Fachgruppe Betriebswirtschaftslehre (45)
- Fachgruppe Soziologie (42)
- Institut für Jüdische Studien und Religionswissenschaft (38)
Language and Content
(2014)
In den romanischen Sprachen stehen Verbalmodi, Modalverben, Modaladverbien und Modalpartikeln zum Ausdruck von Modalität zur Verfügung, die schon häufig mit dem Deutschen verglichen wurden. In diesem Beitrag soll es um Entsprechungen versteckter, sogenannter coverter Modalität gehen (vgl. Abraham / Leiss 2012, Haßler 2012). Zunächst soll das Verständnis von Modalität dargelegt werden, um dann ihre coverten Formen einzuordnen. Die gegenseitigen Entsprechungen werden an Beispielen analysiert und schließlich wird ein Vorschlag entwickelt, wie die Mittel der Modalisierung als sprachspezifisch und zu einem Kontinuum gehörend beschrieben werden können.
This volume contains the articles and papers which predominately have been published in international journals or edited volumes in the period from 1979 to 2009. The single articles reflect the main research areas of the editor and his co-authors who were engaged at the Kiel Institute of World Economics, the Johannes-Kepler-University Linz/Austria, the Justus- Liebig-University Giessen, the University of Potsdam, and the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin).
This volume contains the articles and papers which predominately have been published in international journals or edited volumes in the period from 1979 to 2009. The single articles reflect the main research areas of the editor and his co-authors who were engaged at the Kiel Institute of World Economics, the Johannes-Kepler-University Linz/Austria, the Justus- Liebig-University Giessen, the University of Potsdam, and the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin).
This volume contains the articles and papers which predominately have been published in international journals or edited volumes in the period from 1979 to 2009. The single articles reflect the main research areas of the editor and his co-authors who were engaged at the Kiel Institute of World Economics, the Johannes-Kepler-University Linz/Austria, the Justus- Liebig-University Giessen, the University of Potsdam, and the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin).
This volume contains the articles and papers which predominately have been published in international journals or edited volumes in the period from 1979 to 2009. The single articles reflect the main research areas of the editor and his co-authors who were engaged at the Kiel Institute of World Economics, the Johannes-Kepler-University Linz/Austria, the Justus- Liebig-University Giessen, the University of Potsdam, and the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin).
This volume contains the articles and papers which predominately have been published in international journals or edited volumes in the period from 1979 to 2009. The single articles reflect the main research areas of the editor and his co-authors who were engaged at the Kiel Institute of World Economics, the Johannes-Kepler-University Linz/Austria, the Justus- Liebig-University Giessen, the University of Potsdam, and the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin).
This volume contains the articles and papers which predominately have been published in international journals or edited volumes in the period from 1979 to 2009. The single articles reflect the main research areas of the editor and his co-authors who were engaged at the Kiel Institute of World Economics, the Johannes-Kepler-University Linz/Austria, the Justus- Liebig-University Giessen, the University of Potsdam, and the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin).
New evidence is provided for a grammatical principle that singles out contrastive focus (Rooth 1996; Truckenbrodt 1995) and distinguishes it from discourse-new “informational” focus. Since the prosody of discourse-given constituents may also be distinguished from discourse-new, a three-way distinction in representation is motivated. It is assumed that an F-feature marks just contrastive focus (Jackendoff 1972, Rooth 1992), and that a G-feature marks discoursegiven constituents (Féry and Samek-Lodovici 2006), while discoursenew is unmarked. A crucial argument for G-marking comes from second occurrence focus (SOF) prosody, which arguably derives from a syntactic representation where SOF is both F-marked and G-marked. This analysis relies on a new G-Marking Condition specifying that a contrastive focus may be G-marked only if the focus semantic value of its scope is discourse-given, i.e. only if the contrast itself is given.
Topic and focus
(2007)
The paper explicates the notions of topic, contrastive topic, and focus as used in the analysis of Hungarian. Based on distributional criteria, topic and focus are claimed to represent distinct structural positions in the left periphery of the Hungarian sentence, associated with logical rather than discourse functions. The topic is interpreted as the logical subject of predication. The focus is analyzed as a derived main predicate, specifying the referential content of the set denoted by the backgrounded post-focus section of the sentence. The exhaustivity associated with the focus and the existential presupposition associated with the background are shown to be properties following from their specificational predication relation.
The paper presents an in-depth study of focus marking in Gùrùntùm, a West Chadic language spoken in Bauchi Province of Northern Nigeria. Focus in Gùrùntùm is marked morphologically by means of a focus marker a, which typically precedes the focus constituent. Even though the morphological focus-marking system of Gùrùntùm allows for a lot of fine-grained distinctions in information structure (IS) in principle, the language is not entirely free of focus ambiguities that arise as the result of conflicting IS- and syntactic requirements that govern the placement of focus markers. We show that morphological focus marking with a applies across different types of focus, such as newinformation, contrastive, selective and corrective focus, and that a does not have a second function as a perfectivity marker, as is assumed in the literature. In contrast, we show at the end of the paper that a can also function as a foregrounding device at the level of discourse structure.
Prosodic focus in Vietnamese
(2007)
This paper reports on pilot work on the expression of Information Structure in Vietnamese and argues that Focus in Vietnamese is exclusively expressed prosodically: there are no specific focus markers, and the language uses phonology to express intonational emphasis in similar ways to languages like English or German. The exploratory data indicates that (i) focus is prosodically expressed while word order remains constant, (ii) listeners show good recoverability of the intended focus structure, and (iii) that there is a trading relationship between several phonetic parameters (duration, f0, amplitude) involved to signal prosodic (acoustic) emphasis.
Extract: [...]Of all the print-media newspapers are the most commonly used. They are not literature in the sense of belles letters, but they should not be underestimated in their political, social and personal importance. No other printed product is as closely linked with everyday life as the newspapers. The day begins under their influence, and their contents mirror the events of the day with varying accuracy. Newspapers are strongly reader-oriented. They want to inform, but they also want to instil opinions. Specific choices of information shape the content level. Specific choices of language are resorted to in order to spread opinions and viewpoints. Language creates solidarity between the producers and the consumers of newspapers and thereby supports ideologies by specifically targeted linguistic means. Other strategies are employed for the same purpose, too. Visual aspects are of great importance, such as the typographical layout, the use of pictures, drawings, colours, fonts, etc.[...]
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.
Extract: [...]The New English Dictionary, later to become the Oxford English Dictionary, was first published between 1884 and 1928. To add new material, two supplements were issued after this, the first in 1933, and another, more extensive one between 1972 and 1986. In 1989, the Oxford English Dictionary, second edition (OED2) was published, which integrated the material from the original dictionary and the supplements into a single alphabetical sequence. However, virtually all material contained in this edition still remained in the form in which it was originally published. This is the edition most commonly used today, as it forms the basis of the Oxford English Dictionary Online and is also still being sold in print and on CD-ROM. In 1991, a new project started to revise the entire dictionary and bring its entries up to date, both in terms of English usage and in terms of associated scholarship, such as encyclopaedic information and etymologies. The scope was also widened, placing a greater emphasis on English spoken outside Britain. The revision of the dictionary began with the letter M, and the first updated entries were published online in March 2000 (OED3). Quarterly publication of further material has extended the range of revised entries as far as PROTEOSE n. (June 2007). New words from all parts of the alphabet have been published alongside the regular revision.[...]
Extract: [...]It is true that scholars concentrate on a certain linguistic level in order to reach the greatest depth in their research. But this general stance should not lead to a complete neglect of other levels. When considering a multi-level phenomenon such as language contact and shift, concentration on a single linguistic level can have the unintended and unfortunate consequence of missing linguistically significant generalisations. This is especially true of the main division of linguistic research into a phonological and a grammatical camp, where syntacticians miss phonological generalisations and phonologists syntactic ones. In the present paper the interrelationship of syntax and prosody is investigated with a view to explaining how and why certain transfer structures from Irish became established in Irish English. In this context, the consideration of prosody can be helpful in explaining the precise form of transfer structures in the target variety, here vernacular Irish English. The data for the investigation will consider well-known features of this variety, such as unbound reflexives, non-standard comparatives and tag questions. Furthermore, the paper points out that, taking prosodic patterns into account, can help in extrapolating from individual transfer to the community- wide establishment of transfer structures. In sum, prosody is an essential element in any holistic account of language contact and shift.[...]