Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (25)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (3)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Postprint (2)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (34)
Keywords
- Kiezdeutsch (6)
- Berlinisch (2)
- ERP (2)
- dialect (2)
- public discourse (2)
- racism by proxy (2)
- Argument structure (1)
- Bare NPs (1)
- Covariation (1)
- DaF (1)
- Deutschunterricht (1)
- Directive particles (1)
- Emotion (1)
- Event-related potential (1)
- German forefield (1)
- Internal and external coherence (1)
- Jugendsprache (1)
- L1 Türkisch (1)
- Language (1)
- Late positive potential (1)
- Light verb constructions (1)
- Light verbs (1)
- Literatur (1)
- Mehrsprachigkeit (1)
- Othering (1)
- Priming (1)
- Region (1)
- Sentence processing (1)
- Sorbisch (1)
- Sprache (1)
- Standard German (1)
- Standard language ideology (1)
- Structural parallelisms (1)
- Sustained negativity (1)
- Syntax-semantics interface (1)
- Unterrichtsmaterialien (1)
- Urban dialects (1)
- acceptability study (1)
- anti-bias (1)
- argument structure (1)
- bare NPs (1)
- bare local expressions (1)
- boundary tone (1)
- critical language awareness (1)
- didaktische Anregungen (1)
- emotion (1)
- focus particle (1)
- heritage speakers (1)
- interface between grammar and information structure (1)
- language and education in multilingual settings (1)
- language attitudes (1)
- language erp (1)
- left periphery (1)
- linguistic discrimination (1)
- multiethnolect (1)
- othering (1)
- participles (1)
- prepositions (1)
- priming (1)
- referent introduction (1)
- register competence (1)
- registers (1)
- relative clause formation (1)
- repertoire (1)
- standard language ideology (1)
- sustained negativity (1)
- word order (1)
„Könn’Se berlinern?“
(2017)
Der Vortrag behandelt den Einfluss sprachlicher Strukturen auf unsere Sicht der Welt. Am Beispiel des Englischen und Deutschen diskutiert die Referentin zusammengesetzte Wörter, wie das deutsche Wort "Schildkröte" oder das englische Wort "hedgehog" (Igel, wörtlich: "Heckeneber"), bei denen die lexikalische Bedeutung von unserem Weltwissen abweicht. Eine Schildkröte ist keine Kröte, ein Igel kein Eber, auch wenn ihre Bezeichnungen im Deutschen beziehungsweise im Englischen dies suggerieren. Führen sprachliche Unterschiede in diesem Bereich zu messbaren Unterschieden in der Art, wie wir die Welt wahrnehmen, derart dass Deutsche beispielsweise Schildkröten und Kröten als ähnlicher und Igel und Eber als unähnlicher ansehen, als englische Sprecher dies tun? Heike Wiese geht in ihrer Vorlesung der Frage nach, was solche Zusammenhänge über die Architektur des Sprachsystems und über die Schnittstelle zwischen Grammatik und Weltrepräsentation aussagen.
In present-day German we find new word order options, particularly well-known from Turkish-German bilingual speakers in the contexts of new urban dialects, which allow violations of the canonical verb-second position in independent declarative clauses. In these cases, two positions are occupied in the forefield in front of the finite verb, usually by an adverbial and a subject, which identify, at the level of information structure, frame-setter and topic, respectively. Our study investigates the influence of verbal versus language -independent information-structural preferences for this linearisation, comparing Turkish-German multilingual speakers who have grown up in Germany with monolingual German and Turkish speakers. For tasks, in which grammatical restrictions were largely minimised, the results indicate a general tendency to place verbs in a position after the frame-setter and the topic; in addition, we found language-specific influences that distinguish Turkish-German and monolingual German speakers from monolingual Turkish ones. We interpret this as evidence for an information-structural motivation for verb-third, and for a clear dominance of German for Turkish-German speakers in Germany.
We used event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate the neurocognitive mechanisms associated with processing light verb constructions such as "give a kiss". These constructions consist of a semantically underspecified light verb ("give") and an event nominal that contributes most of the meaning and also activates an argument structure of its own ("kiss"). This creates a mismatch between the syntactic constituents and the semantic roles of a sentence. Native speakers read German verb-final sentences that contained light verb constructions (e.g., "Julius gave Anne a kiss"), non-light constructions (e.g., "Julius gave Anne a rose"), and semantically anomalous constructions (e.g., 'Julius gave Anne a conversation"). ERPs were measured at the critical verb, which appeared after all its arguments. Compared to non-light constructions, the light verb constructions evoked a widely distributed, frontally focused, sustained negative-going effect between 500 and 900 ms after verb onset. We interpret this effect as reflecting working memory costs associated with complex semantic processes that establish a shared argument structure in the light verb constructions.
Language can strongly influence the emotional state of the recipient. In contrast to the broad body of experimental and neuroscientific research on semantic information and prosodic speech, the emotional impact of grammatical structure has rarely been investigated. One reason for this might be, that measuring effects of syntactic structure involves the use of complex stimuli, for which the emotional impact of grammar is difficult to isolate. In the present experiment we examined the emotional impact of structural parallelisms, that is, repetitions of syntactic features, on the emotion-sensitive "late positive potential" (LPP) with a cross-modal priming paradigm. Primes were auditory presented nonsense sentences which included grammatical-syntactic parallelisms. Visual targets were positive, neutral, and negative faces, to be classified as emotional or non-emotional by the participants. Electrophysiology revealed diminished LPP amplitudes for positive faces following parallel primes. Thus, our findings suggest that grammatical structure creates an emotional context that facilitates processing of positive emotional information.
This paper discusses a hitherto undescribed usage of the particle so as a dedicated focus marker in contemporary German. I discuss grammatical and pragmatic characteristics of this focus marker, supporting my account with natural linguistic data and with controlled experimental evidence showing that so has a significant influence on speakers’ understanding of what the focus expression in a sentence is. Against this background, I sketch a possible pragmaticalization path from referential usages of so via hedging to a semantically bleached focus marker, which, unlike particles such as auch ‘also’/‘too’ or nur ‘only’, does not contribute any additional meaning.