Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (24) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (24) (remove)
Language
- English (24) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (24) (remove)
Keywords
- (Statement-Question Matching) (1)
- F-marking (1)
- Focus (1)
- G-marking (1)
- Information Structure (1)
- Perception (1)
- Vietnamese (1)
- contrastive focus (1)
- contrastive topic (1)
- exhaustive identification (1)
Institute
Extract: That the Celtic languages were of the Indo-European family was first recognised by Rasmus Christian Rask (*1787), a young Danish linguist, in 1818. However, the fact that he wrote in Danish meant that his discovery was not noted by the linguistic establishment until long after his untimely death in 1832. The same conclusion was arrived at independently of Rask and, apparently, of each other, by Adolphe Pictet (1836) and Franz Bopp (1837). This agreement between the foremost scholars made possible the completion of the picture of the spread of the Indo-European languages in the extreme west of the European continent. However, in the Middle Ages the speakers of Irish had no awareness of any special relationship between Irish and the other Celtic languages, and a scholar as linguistically competent as Cormac mac Cuillennáin (†908), or whoever compiled Sanas Chormaic, treated Welsh on the same basis as Greek, Latin, and the lingua northmannorum in the elucidation of the meaning and history of Irish words. [...]
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.
Extract: [...]Intriguing as they undoubtedly are, the early sixteenth-century lists of books in the Earl of Kildare’s library may well have inadvertently helped to lull scholars into visualising a rather idealised picture of language balance in multilingual late medieval Ireland. The lists reflect a society in which the four languages, Irish, English, Latin and French, vied as scholarly media and where the outcome in the Earl’s library was a four-way photo-finish. The number of volumes in each of the languages was recorded as follows: Latin, 34; French, 35; English, 22; Irish, 20 (Mac Niocaill 1992: 312-314). But of course the multilingual contact situation in Ireland had always been quite dynamic, both at vernacular and at scholarly levels, following the Anglo-Norman invasion of 1169. Although French continued to be employed in official documents into the second half of the 15th century, it had already ceded its vernacular role to English in the towns of the colonists prior to the drawing up of the Statutes of Kilkenny in 1366. These Statutes, composed in Norman-French, the primary language of English law at the time, provide an earlier snapshot of the language situation within the areas under English jurisdiction, as they sought to compel the colonists to desist from adopting Irish as a community vernacular. Ironically, no mention is made of Norman-French in the Statutes themselves. It is clear that what was at issue was a contest for supremacy between Irish and English as the principal vernacular among the colonists.[...]
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).
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: [...] One of the often noted characteristic features of the Celtic languages is the absence of a singular verbal form with the meaning ‘to have’.1 The principal way of expressing possession is through periphrastic constructions with prepositions (such as Irish ag, Scottish Gaelic aig ‘at’; Welsh gan, Breton gant ‘at, with’) and appropriate forms of the substantive verb. Pronominal prepositions, another distinctive feature of the Celtic languages, consist of a preposition and a suffixed pronoun, or rather a pronominal personal ending. This construction may be analyzed as an instance of category fusion. Thus, the Irish and Welsh equivalents of English ‘I have money’ are Tá airgead agam or Mae arian gen i, respectively, both literally meaning ‘is money at-me/with-me’. This note discusses pronominal possessive constructions in Celtic languages (and some comparable examples from Celtic Englishes) and provides some background information on pronominal prepositions and comments on historical developments of these forms. It also discusses some terminological issues involved in labelling the construction in question. [...]
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.[...]
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.[...]
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.
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.[...]
Extract: [...]In the first part of this paper I trace the language shift from Breton to French within the historical, social and ideological framework in which it occurred. I then argue that 19th and 20th-century attempts by scholars and militants to rehabilitate the Breton language led to the creation of a unified standard (peurunvan).2 The consequence has been the rise of a three-way diglossic rapport between the speakers of French, the new Breton standard3 and those of the traditional Breton vernaculars. Taking the varieties of southern Cornouaille (Finistère) between Quimper and Quimperlé as a point of comparison,4 I focus on a number of phonological, morphological, syntactical and lexical features which, though far from exhausttive, are not generally taken into account in the new standard language. These details provide a general idea of how varieties of Breton function at the micro-dialectological level, as well as ways in which they can differ from the standard and other spoken varieties. The paper concludes with observations regarding the necessity to consider languages, language varieties and their speakers within relevant social contexts.[...]
Contents: The Sociolinguistic Conditions favourable to spread of Structural Features Contact-induced Changes in Insular Celtic Phonological Changes The Lenition of Voiceless Stops Raising / i-Affection Lowering / a-Affection Apocope Syncope Morphological The Loss of Case Inflection of Personal Pronouns The Creation of the Equative Degree The Creation of the Imperfect Tense The Creation of the Conditional Mood Morphosyntactic and Syntactic The Creation of Preposed Definite Articles