Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (24)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (3)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Postprint (2)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (33)
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)
Region – Sprache – Literatur
(2017)
Mit dem neuen Rahmenlehrplan für die Länder Brandenburg und Berlin wird der Kompetenzentwicklung der Schülerinnen und Schüler unter den Bedingungen lebensweltlicher Erfahrungen ein besonderer Stellenwert beigemessen. Der Sammelband enthält Beiträge, in denen den Lehrerinnen und Lehrern vielfältige Unterrichtsmaterialien und didaktische Anregungen für einen praxisnahen, entdeckenden Unterricht in der Primar- und Sekundarstufe für den Deutschunterricht vorgestellt werden. Diese reichen von theoretischen Grundlagen, über einzelne Unterrichtssequenzen und Projekte bis zur Darstellung einer Lernspirale für die Jahrgangsstufen 1 bis 10. Vielfältige, auch multimediale Zugänge bis zum spielerischen Umgang mit der Sprache zeigen, dass Sprache kein „trockener“ Lerngegenstand sein muss. Die Beiträge geben darüber hinaus Einblicke in die fachlichen Hintergründe, die helfen sollen, den Zugang zu den einzelnen Gegenständen zu erleichtern. Das thematische Zentrum „Region“ bildet den Ausgangspunkt für die Einbeziehung des Niederdeutschen, Sorbischen, Berlinischen, Kiezdeutschen sowie der Dialekte. Dabei werden sowohl literarische als auch Sachtexte berücksichtigt.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.