Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (55) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (33)
- Part of a Book (15)
- Master's Thesis (2)
- Other (2)
- Postprint (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (55) (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)
- Koreakrieg (1)
- Korean War (1)
- Kubrick (1)
- Linguistic Landscapes (1)
- Linguistics (1)
- Linguistics of Variation (1)
- MacArthur (1)
- Markenidentifikation (1)
- Nietzsche (1)
- Odyssee (1)
- Odyssey (1)
- Schopenhauer (1)
- Socioinguistics (1)
- Sociolinguistics (1)
- Sozioinguistik (1)
- Soziolinguistik (1)
- Sprachwissenschaft (1)
- Truman (1)
- Variationslinguistik (1)
- World Englishes (1)
Institute
- Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (55) (remove)
Inhalt: 1. Vorbemerkungen 2. Zu einigen philosophischen und theoretisch-linguistischen Grundlagen einer kommunikativ orientierten Betrachtung der Sprache 3. Sprache und menschliche Gesellschaft 4. Der Euphemismus 5. Euphemismen im Golfkrieg - Zur Analyse der Untersuchungsergebnisse 6. Zusammenfassung und Schlußfolgerungen 7. Perspektiven der kommunikativen Sprachforschung bezüglich 215der Untersuchung des politischen Euphemismus - Forschungsausblick und Schlußbemerkungen
Content: 1. Introduction 2. Early Examples of the AFP in Hiberno-English 3. Assessments of the Evidence 4. Attempts to Explain the Early HE Construction 5. Distribution and Function of the AFP in EMI and HE 5.1. The AFP with the Future Tense in Irish 5.2. The AFP with the Secondary Future or Conditional 5.3. The AFP with the Subjunctive 5.5. Functions of the AFP in Early Modern Irish and HE 6. The Restriction of the AFP to the Recent Perfect 7. Conclusions
Content: 1. Preverbal Composition in Old Irish and Old English 2. The Shape of the Modern Irish Verbal Lexeme 3. Particle Verbs in Irish and English 3.1. Definitions: Phrasal Verb or Prepositional Verb? 3.2. Examples 3.3. Obvious Similarities 3.4. Irish English Peculiarities 4. The Abolition of Verbal Composition in Irish and English – Parallels and Differences in Historical Syntax 5. Conclusions
Content: 1. Introduction 2. Getting to the Seen from the Unseen 2.1. The Theory of the Zones 2.2. Brief Comments on Mechanism 3. The Areal Evidence: Shared Features and Their Dialectal Provenance 4. Explaining the Evidence Seen 4.1. Why It Is Not Due to Mere Misleading Coincidence 4.2. Why It Is Not Due to French Influence 4.3. Why It Is Not Due to Norse Influence 4.4. Why It Is Not Due to English Influence over Brittonic 4.5. Why It Is Due to Brittonic Influence 5. Conclusion 5.1. The Areal Pattern and Its Explanation 5.2. Substrate versus Superstrate 5.3. Some Final Arguments, and Good Questions 6. Addenda
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
What’s in an irish name?
(2006)
Content: 1. Introduction: The Irish Patronymic System Prior to 1600 2. Anglicisation Pressure 3. Anglicisation: 1600-1900 3.1. Phonetic Approximation 3.2. Simplification 3.3. Translation 3.4. Mistranslation 3.5. Equivalence with Existing English Surname 3.6. Multiplicity of Anglicised Forms 3.7. Anglicisation of Prefixes 4. The Call to De-Anglicise 5. Current Personal Naming Patterns in Ireland 5.1. Current Modern Irish 6. Traditional Naming: “X (Son/Daughter) of Y (Son/Daughter) of Z” 7. Nicknames 8. Conclusion
What is "Celtic"and what is universal in the "Celtic Englishes"? This was the central concern of the fourth and final Colloquium of studies on language contact between English and the Celtic languages at the University of Potsdam in September 2004. The contributions to this volume discuss the "Celtic" peculiarities of Standard English in England and in Ireland (North and South). They also examine the perceived "Celticity" of personal names in the "Celtic" countries (Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany). Moreover, they put emphasis on specific grammatical features such as the expression of perfectivity, relativity, intensification and the typological shift of verbal word formation from syntheticity to analycity as well as the emergence of universal contact trends shared by Celtic, African and Indian Englishes. Thus, the choice of contributors and the scope of their articles makes Celtic Englishes IV an invaluable handbook for scholarly work in the field of the English - Celtic relations.
Irish standard English
(2006)
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
Extract: [...]In Celtic languages (both Continental and Insular) we can find words with uncertain etymology which presumably represent loanwords from other language-families. One can see the traces of the pre-Indo-European substratum of Central and Western Europe, “an original non-Celtic/non-Germanic North West block” according to Kuhn (1961). But we may suppose that this conclusion is not sufficiently justified. This problem can have many different solutions, and we may never be in a position to resolve it definitively.[...]
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): [...]
Extract: [...]The Roman conquest of what was to become the province of Gallia Narbonensis in the second and then of the whole of Transalpine Gaul in the first century B.C. led to the incorporation into the Roman empire of a large part of the territory in which Gaulish was then spoken.1 In consequence, the vernacular rapidly lost its footing at least in public life and was soon replaced by Latin, the language of the new masters, which enjoyed higher prestige (cf. e.g. Meid 1980: 7-8). On the other hand, Gaulish continued to be written for some three centuries and was probably used in speech even longer, especially in rural areas. We must therefore posit a prolonged period of bilingualism. The effects of this situation on the Latin spoken in the provinces of Gaul seem to have been rather limited. A number of lexical items, mostly from the field of everyday life, and some phonetic characteristics are the sole testimonies of a Gaulish substratum in the variety of Latin that was later to develop into the Romance dialects of France (cf. Meid 1980: 38, fn. 77). [...]