Institut für Linguistik / Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft
Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (177)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (154)
- Postprint (6)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (4)
- Part of a Book (4)
- Other (4)
- Doctoral Thesis (3)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (177) (remove)
Keywords
- Patholinguistik (39)
- Sprachtherapie (39)
- patholinguistics (39)
- speech/language therapy (32)
- Cochlea-Implantat (16)
- Dysphagie (16)
- Hören (16)
- Hörstörungen (16)
- Schluckstörung (16)
- Schlucktherapie (16)
Inhalt: 1. Einleitung 2. Hintergrund 2.1 Die prosodische Organisation des Deutschen 2.2 Implikationen für den Erwerb der Wortprosodie im Deutschen 3. Methode 3.1 Datenerhebung 3.2 Empirische Analyse 4. Ergebnisse: Die Entwicklung des Prosodischen Wortes im Deutschen 5. Analyse der empirischen Daten 5.1 Grundannahmen 5.2 Analyse der Entwicklungsstufen 6. Zusammenfassung und Diskussion 7. Literatur
Inhalt: 1. Einleitung 1.1 Blickbewegungen beim Lesen 1.2 Kognitive Kontrolle und verteilte Verarbeitung 2. Fragestellungen und Hypothesen 3. Methoden 3.1 Probanden 3.2 Material 3.3 Durchführung und Auswertung 4. Ergebnisse 4.1 Unterschiede in Effekten der Wortvorhersagbarkeit 4.2 Unterschiede in Effekten der Wortfrequenz 5. Diskussion 6. Literatur
Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; Working papers of the SFB 632. - Vol. 10
(2008)
The 10th volume of the working paper series contains two papers contributed by SFB-members. The first paper “Single prosodic phrase sentences” by Caroline Féry (A1) and Heiner Drenhaus (C6, University of Potsdam) investigates the prosody of Wide Focus Partial Fronting in a series of production and perception experiments. The second paper “Focus Asymmetries in Bura” by Katharina Hartmann, Peggy Jacob (B2, Humboldt University Berlin) and Malte Zimmermann (A5, University of Potsdam) explores the strategies of marking focus in Bura (Chadic).
Auszug: In der psycho- und neurolinguistischen Morphologieforschung wird die Frage behandelt, wie polymorphematische Wörter, d. h. Wörter, die aus mehr als einem Morphem bestehen (z. B. Apfel-baum; Be-mal-ung, mal-e), im mentalen Lexikon repräsentiert sind und wie sie verarbeitet werden. Spielt die interne morphologische Wortstruktur dabei überhaupt eine Rolle oder sind solche Wörter ganzheitlich repräsentiert? Die beiden großen konkurrierenden Theorien zur Verarbeitung polymorphematischer Wörter sind die Dekompositionshypothese und die Auflistungshypothese. Nach der Dekompositionshypothese werden morphologisch komplexe Wörter bei der rezeptiven Worterkennung in ihre Einzelteile aufgespalten (dekomponiert), beim expressiven Wortabruf müssen die zugrunde liegenden Morpheme einzeln vom Lexikon abgerufen und zu einer Vollform zusammengesetzt (komponiert) werden (z. B. Taft & Forster 1976). Im Unterschied dazu besagt die Auflistungshypothese, dass komplexe Wörter als Vollformen im Lexikon repräsentiert sind und abgerufen werden (Butterworth 1983). Wortbildungsregeln kommen nach der Dekompositionshypothese also grundsätzlich zum Einsatz, während nach der Auflistungshypothese morphologische Prozesse nur bei der Verarbeitung von unbekannten Vollformen oder bei der Bildung neuer Vollformen ablaufen. [...]
Semantik
(2008)
Auszug: In diesem Beitrag werden „von der Theorie zur Therapie“ aktuelle theoretische Annahmen über die Organisation semantischer Repräsentationen sowie der gegenwärtige Stand der Forschungsliteratur zur Behandlung semantischer Störungen vorgestellt. Zunächst gebe ich einen Einblick in die Fragestellungen meiner Dissertation, in der mit zwei Reaktionszeitexperimenten insbesondere die Frage überprüft wurde, ob für Konzepte aus biologischen semantischen Kategorien andere Organisationsprinzipien angenommen werden müssen als für Konzepte aus künstlichen, von Menschenhand geschaffenen semantischen Kategorien. Anschließend wird ein Einblick in die gegenwärtige Literatur zur Therapie semantischer Störungen und den zu erwartenden Generalisierungseffekten auf in der Therapie nicht behandelte Items gegeben. [...]
A series of production and perception experiments investigating the prosody and well-formedness of special sentences, called Wide Focus Partial Fronting (WFPF), which consist of only one prosodic phrase and a unique initial accented argument, are reported on here. The results help us to decide between different models of German prosody. The absence of pitch height difference on the accent of the sentence speaks in favor of a relative model of prosody, in which accents are scaled relative to each other, and against models in which pitch accents are scaled in an absolute way. The results also speak for a model in which syntax, but not information structure, influences the prosodic phrasing. Finally, perception experiments show that the prosodic structure of sentences with a marked word order needs to be presented for grammaticality judgments. Presentation of written material only is not enough, and falsifies the results.
Focus asymmetries in Bura
(2008)
(Chadic), which exhibits a number of asymmetries: Grammatical focus marking is obligatory only with focused subjects, where focus is marked by the particle án following the subject. Focused subjects remain in situ and the complement of án is a regular VP. With nonsubject foci, án appears in a cleft-structure between the fronted focus constituent and a relative clause. We present a semantically unified analysis of focus marking in Bura that treats the particle as a focusmarking copula in T that takes a property-denoting expression (the background) and an individual-denoting expression (the focus) as arguments. The article also investigates the realization of predicate and polarity focus, which are almost never marked. The upshot of the discussion is that Bura shares many characteristic traits of focus marking with other Chadic languages, but it crucially differs in exhibiting a structural difference in the marking of focus on subjects and non-subject constituents.
When we pay close attention to the prosody of Wh-questions in Japanese, we discover many novel and interesting empirical puzzles that would require us to devise a much finer syntactic component of grammar. This paper addresses the issues that pose some problems to such an elaborated grammar, and offers solutions, making an appeal to the information structure and sentence processing involved in the interpretation of interrogative and focus constructions.
This paper presents the results of a production experiment on the intonation of sentences containing a negative polarity item (NPI) in Tokyo Japanese. The results show that NPI sentences exhibit a focus intonation: the F₀-peak of the word to which an NPI is attached is raised, while the pitch contour after the NPI-attached word is compressed until the negation. This intonation pattern is parallel to that of wh-question, in which the F₀ of the wh-phrase is raised while the post-wh-contour is compressed until the question particle.
Three dimensions can be distinguished in a cross-linguistic account of information structure. First, there is the definition of the focus constituent, the part of the linguistic expression which is subject to some focus meaning. Second and third, there are the focus meanings and the array of structural devices that encode them. In a given language, the expression of focus is facilitated as well as constrained by the grammar within which the focus devices operate. The prevalence of focus ambiguity, the structural inability to make focus distinctions, will thus vary across languages, and within a language, across focus meanings.
Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; Working papers of the SFB 632. - Vol. 8
(2007)
The 8th volume of the working paper series Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) of the SFB 632 contains a collection of eight papers contributed by guest authors and SFB-members. The first paper on “Biased Questions” is an invited contribution by Nicholas Asher (CNRS, Laboratoire IRIT) & Brian Reese (University of Texas at Austin). Surveying English tag questions, negative polar questions, and what they term “focus” questions, they investigate the effects of prosody on discourse function and discourse structure and analyze the interaction between prosody and discourse in SDRT (Segmented Discourse Representation Theory). Stefan Hinterwimmer (A2) explores the interpretation of singular definites and universally quantified DPs in adverbially quantified English sentences. He suggests that the availability of a co-varying interpretation is more constrained in the case of universally quantified DPs than in the case of singular definites, because different from universally quantified DPs, co-varying definites are inherently focus-marked. The existence of striking similarities between topic/comment structure and bimanual coordination is pointed out and investigated by Manfred Krifka (A2). Showing how principles of bimanual coordination influence the expression of topic/comment structure beyond spoken language, he suggests that bimanual coordination might have been a preadaptation of the development of Information Structure in human communication. Among the different ways of expressing focus in Foodo, an underdescribed African Guang language of the Kwa family, the marked focus constructions are the central topic of the paper by Ines Fiedler (B1 & D2). Exploring the morphosyntactic facilities that Foodo has for focalization, she suggests that the two focus markers N and n have developed out of a homophone conjunction. Focus marking in another scarcely documented African tone language, the Gur language Konkomba, is treated by Anne Schwarz (B1 & D2). Comparing the two alleged focus markers lé and lá of the language, she argues that lé is better interpreted as a syntactic device rather than as a focus marker and shows that this analysis is corroborated by parallels in related languages. The reflexes of Information Structure in four different European languages (French, German, Greek and Hungarian) are compared and validated by Sam Hellmuth & Stavros Skopeteas (D2). The production data was collected with selected materials of the Questionnaire on Information Structure (QUIS) developed at the SFB. The results not only allow for an evaluation of the current elicitation paradigms, but also help to identify potentially fruitful venues of future research. Frank Kügler, Stavros Skopeteas (D2) & Elisabeth Verhoeven (University of Bremen) give an account of the encoding of Information Structure in Yucatec Maya, a Mayan tone language spoken on the Yucatecan peninsula in Mexico. The results of a production experiment lead them to the conclusion that focus is mainly expressed by syntax in this language. Stefanie Jannedy (D3) undertakes an instrumental investigation on the expressions and interpretation of focus in Vietnamese, a language of the Mon-Khmer family contrasting six lexical tones. The data strongly suggests that focus in Vietnamese is exclusively marked by prosody (intonational emphasis expressed via duration, f0 and amplitude) and that different focus conditions can reliably be recovered. This volume offers insights into current work conducted at the SFB 632, comprising empirical and theoretical aspects of Information Structure in a multitude of languages. Several of the papers mine field work data collected during the first phase of the SFB and explore the expression of Information Structure in tone and non-tone languages from various regions of the world.
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.
While the Information Structure (IS) is most naturally interpreted as 'structure of information', some may argue that it is structure of something else, and others may object to the use of the word 'structure'. This paper focuses on the question of whether the informational component can have structural properties such that it can be called 'structure'. The preliminary conclusion is that, although there are some vague indications of structurehood in it, it is perhaps better understood to be a representation that encodes a finite set of information-based partitions, rather than structure.
Focus presuppositions
(2007)
This paper reviews notions related to focus and presupposition and addresses the hypothesis that focus triggers an existential presupposition. Presupposition projection behavior in certain examples appears to favor a presuppositional analysis of focus. It is argued that these examples are open to a different analysis using givenness theory. Overall, the analysis favors a weak semantics for focus not including an existential presupposition.
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.