@article{Soder2017, author = {Soder, Lisa}, title = {An den Grenzen der Pragmatik}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r germanistische Linguistik}, volume = {45}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r germanistische Linguistik}, number = {3}, issn = {1613-0626}, doi = {10.1515/zgl-2017-0024}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-195413}, pages = {428-434}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Kein Abstract verf{\"u}gbar.}, language = {de} } @article{TomasekOtt2016, author = {Tomasek, Stefan and Ott, Christine}, title = {Nils Mohl und Hartmann von Aue. Zur intertextuellen Verweisstruktur in Stadtrandritter und ihrem didaktischen Potential f{\"u}r den Deutschunterricht.}, series = {Literatur im Unterricht - Texte der Gegenwartsliteratur f{\"u}r die Schule}, journal = {Literatur im Unterricht - Texte der Gegenwartsliteratur f{\"u}r die Schule}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-210590}, pages = {267-286}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Kein Abstract verf{\"u}gbar.}, language = {de} } @article{BerenikeHerrmannvanDalenOskamSchoech2015, author = {Berenike Herrmann, J. and van Dalen-Oskam, Karina and Sch{\"o}ch, Christof}, title = {Revisiting Style, a Key Concept in Literary Studies}, series = {Journal of Literary Theory}, volume = {9}, journal = {Journal of Literary Theory}, number = {1}, issn = {1862-8990}, doi = {10.1515/jlt-2015-0003}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-194349}, pages = {25-52}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Language and literary studies have studied style for centuries, and even since the advent of ›stylistics‹ as a discipline at the beginning of the twentieth century, definitions of ›style‹ have varied heavily across time, space and fields. Today, with increasingly large collections of literary texts being made available in digital form, computational approaches to literary style are proliferating. New methods from disciplines such as corpus linguistics and computer science are being adopted and adapted in interrelated fields such as computational stylistics and corpus stylistics, and are facilitating new approaches to literary style. The relation between definitions of style in established linguistic or literary stylistics, and definitions of style in computational or corpus stylistics has not, however, been systematically assessed. This contribution aims to respond to the need to redefine style in the light of this new situation and to establish a clearer perception of both the overlap and the boundaries between ›mainstream‹ and ›computational‹ and/or ›empirical‹ literary stylistics. While stylistic studies of non-literary texts are currently flourishing, our contribution deliberately centers on those approaches relevant to ›literary stylistics‹. It concludes by proposing an operational definition of style that we hope can act as a common ground for diverse approaches to literary style, fostering transdisciplinary research. The focus of this contribution is on literary style in linguistics and literary studies (rather than in art history, musicology or fashion), on textual aspects of style (rather than production- or reception-oriented theories of style), and on a descriptive perspective (rather than a prescriptive or didactic one). Even within these limits, however, it appears necessary to build on a broad understanding of the various perspectives on style that have been adopted at different times and in different traditions. For this reason, the contribution first traces the development of the notion of style in three different traditions, those of German, Dutch and French language and literary studies. Despite the numerous links between each other, and between each of them to the British and American traditions, these three traditions each have their proper dynamics, especially with regard to the convergence and/or confrontation between mainstream and computational stylistics. For reasons of space and coherence, the contribution is limited to theoretical developments occurring since 1945. The contribution begins by briefly outlining the range of definitions of style that can be encountered across traditions today: style as revealing a higher-order aesthetic value, as the holistic ›gestalt‹ of single texts, as an expression of the individuality of an author, as an artifact presupposing choice among alternatives, as a deviation from a norm or reference, or as any formal property of a text. The contribution then traces the development of definitions of style in each of the three traditions mentioned, with the aim of giving a concise account of how, in each tradition, definitions of style have evolved over time, with special regard to the way such definitions relate to empirical, quantitative or otherwise computational approaches to style in literary texts. It will become apparent how, in each of the three traditions, foundational texts continue to influence current discussions on literary style, but also how stylistics has continuously reacted to broader developments in cultural and literary theory, and how empirical, quantitative or computational approaches have long ­existed, usually in parallel to or at the margins of mainstream stylistics. The review will also reflect the lines of discussion around style as a property of literary texts - or of any textual entity in general. The perspective on three stylistic traditions is accompanied by a more systematic perspective. The rationale is to work towards a common ground for literary scholars and linguists when talking about (literary) style, across traditions of stylistics, with respect for established definitions of style, but also in light of the digital paradigm. Here, we first show to what extent, at similar or different moments in time, the three traditions have developed comparable positions on style, and which definitions out of the range of possible definitions have been proposed or promoted by which authors in each of the three traditions. On the basis of this synthesis, we then conclude by proposing an operational definition of style that is an attempt to provide a common ground for both mainstream and computational literary stylistics. This definition is discussed in some detail in order to explain not only what is meant by each term in the definition, but also how it relates to computational analyses of style - and how this definition aims to avoid some of the pitfalls that can be perceived in earlier definitions of style. Our definition, we hope, will be put to use by a new generation of computational, quantitative, and empirical studies of style in literary texts.}, language = {en} } @article{KraemerNeubert1990, author = {Kr{\"a}mer-Neubert, Sabine}, title = {Mundart und Geschichte des Miltenberger Raumes}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-73135}, year = {1990}, abstract = {No abstract available}, subject = {Mundart}, language = {de} } @article{Klein2021, author = {Klein, Wolf Peter}, title = {Vorlesung und H{\"o}rsaal als Symptomw{\"o}rter f{\"u}r Geschichte und Gegenwart der deutschen Sprache}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r germanistische Linguistik}, volume = {49}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r germanistische Linguistik}, number = {3}, issn = {1613-0626}, doi = {10.1515/zgl-2021-2039}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-250810}, pages = {556 -- 595}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The article starts with the etymology of the words Vorlesung („lecture") and H{\"o}rsaal ("lecture hall"). On the one hand, it turns out that the two expressions are deeply anchored in the history of the old Latin scientific language. They transmit Latin structures and perspectives in German neologisms. On the other hand, the two words arose exactly at the time when the sciences were moving from Latin to German, thus distancing themselves from the traditional forms of Latin scholarship. In this light, they exemplify an epochal change in the history of the German language, but at the same time they represent a great European continuity. Against this background, the two words can be interpreted as symptomatic words associated with the Enlightenment's confident outlook on the future relationship between science and society. Further corpus linguistic surveys also show how productively the two words appear in word formation processes. In particular, these surveys show by way of example that and how German standard language has benefited from the emergence of German academic language.}, language = {de} } @article{Maric2006, author = {Maric, Dario}, title = {Das System der Aussprachefehler der Bosnisch/Kroatisch/Serbisch lernenden Deutschen}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-17496}, year = {2006}, abstract = {Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden Phoneminventare des Deutschen und des Bosnisch-/Kroatisch-/Serbischen einander gegen{\"u}bergestellt mit dem Ziel der Aufstellung eines regelm{\"a}ßigen konsequenten, nur f{\"u}r die Bosnisch/Kroatisch/Serbisch lernenden Deutschen charakteristischen Systems der Aussprachefehler, das aus der zu feststellenden Verschiedenheit der Lautsysteme des Deutschen und des B/K/S hervorgeht. Die Phoneme und Allophone beider Sprachen werden vom artikulatorischen Standpunkt aus beschrieben, es wird auf ihre Distribution innerhalb des Wortes hingewiesen, schließlich wird ihr phonologischer Status innerhalb des Lautsystems festgestellt. Die Einfl{\"u}sse der deutschen Dialekte auf die Perzeption und die Artikulation des B/K/S bei den B/K/S lernenden Deutschen werden hier nicht in Betracht gezogen.}, subject = {S{\"u}dslawische Sprachen}, language = {de} } @article{BohnenkampBrueningHenkeetal.2012, author = {Bohnenkamp, Anne and Br{\"u}ning, Gerrit and Henke, Silke and Henzel, Katrin and Jannidis, Fotis and Middel, Gregor and Pravida, Dietmar and Wissenbach, Moritz}, title = {Perspektiven auf Goethes ›Faust‹ Werkstattbericht der historisch-kritischen Hybridedition}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-76823}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Werkstattbericht Hybridedition zu Goethes Faust. Es handelt sich dabei um ein Gemeinschaftsprojekt des Freien deutsche Hochstifts, des Goethe- und Schiller Archivs Weimar und der Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg. Der Aufsatz befasst sich mit dem derzeitigen Entwicklungsstand der Edition, deren Konzeption als Hybridedition und verschiedenen Aspekten der Datenmodellierung.}, subject = {Historische Kritik}, language = {de} } @article{Kreiner2022, author = {Kreiner, Lea}, title = {Das Genus im Sprachvergleich: Genuszuweisung bei substantivischen Lehnw{\"o}rtern im Deutschen und Spanischen}, series = {promptus - W{\"u}rzburger Beitr{\"a}ge zur Romanistik}, volume = {8}, journal = {promptus - W{\"u}rzburger Beitr{\"a}ge zur Romanistik}, issn = {2364-6705}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-329784}, pages = {123-143}, year = {2022}, abstract = {This article examines principles of gender assignment in the German and Spanish language and in this way tries to answer the question of why loanwords are preferably assigned a particular gender and what criteria motivate this choice. After introducing some general aspects about gender as well as some important properties of the German and Spanish gender systems, this paper compares several formal (morphological and phonological) and semantic rules regarding gender assignment. Despite large structural differences between the languages, the comparison shows that the assignment rules prove to be in a sense cross-lingual, which do not only testify to the assumption but also the validity of an underlying system of rules.}, language = {de} } @article{Haidacher2022, author = {Haidacher, Bernhard}, title = {The concept of confix in German, French, and Italian - a comparative study}, series = {promptus - W{\"u}rzburger Beitr{\"a}ge zur Romanistik}, volume = {8}, journal = {promptus - W{\"u}rzburger Beitr{\"a}ge zur Romanistik}, issn = {2364-6705}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-329756}, pages = {63-83}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Despite some critical voices, in German linguistics the concept of confix can meanwhile be considered as an established morpheme category. Schmidt (1987) introduced the term into German to describe bound morphemes that are lexical, but not inflectable. Since the 2000s, an increasing number of publications deal with the phenomenon and the term has begun to enter linguistic reference works as well. In French, the situation is completely different due to the structure of the language (poor in compounds and mostly post-determinative). Although the term and the concept have originall y been coined by the French structuralist Andr{\´e} Martinet ([1961] \(^3\)1980 ), the denomination itself is barely present in Romance linguistics. French researchers usually take different approaches to discuss the phenomenon (e.g., neoclassical compounds, constructed lexemes). In Italian, the denominations confisso/ confissazione are first used by De Mauro (1999), who adopts both the term and concept directly from Martinet; moreover, they can be found in some contributions on word formation and lexicology (e.g., Adamo/Della Valle 2008). Nevertheless, the Italian termino-logy remains heterogeneous, with some researchers still using the terms prefissoide/suffissoide coined by Migliorini (1963). As I will show by comparing the languages in question, the terminology and the concept of confixes vary greatly between Romance and Germanic languages.}, language = {en} }