Abstract The dichotomy between the good and the bad student seems really outdated today. The method used to summarize academic results and to report about them in writing has changed in a positive manner despite the routines still rooted in teachers’ practices. In this paper, we will analyze the semantic orientation of the word “student” when it is used in school reports’ assessments. The concordances drawn from a certified body will be compared to the student as modelled in official guidelines and in educational sciences, or as sketched in the representations of the teachers in the field whether they are beginners or veterans. We will demonstrate that the use of this word and its almost systematic collocations in school reports show semantic qualities that betray an underlying definition of the perfect student, who is obviously unattainable since he or she is actually a future individual, the perfect student who is already highly praised. These praises are linked to his or her personality traits more than his or her school work strictly speaking. The perfect student is complimented through afferent semes which paradoxically end up excluding the teacher from this raison d’être although it is necessarily a two-way relationship
{"title":"L’elève des bulletins scolaires : le spectre sémantique d’un modèle utopique","authors":"Isabelle Monin","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0023","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The dichotomy between the good and the bad student seems really outdated today. The method used to summarize academic results and to report about them in writing has changed in a positive manner despite the routines still rooted in teachers’ practices. In this paper, we will analyze the semantic orientation of the word “student” when it is used in school reports’ assessments. The concordances drawn from a certified body will be compared to the student as modelled in official guidelines and in educational sciences, or as sketched in the representations of the teachers in the field whether they are beginners or veterans. We will demonstrate that the use of this word and its almost systematic collocations in school reports show semantic qualities that betray an underlying definition of the perfect student, who is obviously unattainable since he or she is actually a future individual, the perfect student who is already highly praised. These praises are linked to his or her personality traits more than his or her school work strictly speaking. The perfect student is complimented through afferent semes which paradoxically end up excluding the teacher from this raison d’être although it is necessarily a two-way relationship","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131562170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The article explores a number of conceptual parallels in the developments of L. Vygotski and “psychological linguistics” (Humboldt, Steinthal, Potebnia). Ideas from the nineteenth-century psycholinguistic current occupy a very important place in the conceptions of “psychology by action” of the psychological school of L. Vygotski and A. N. Leontiev. Therefore, the true understanding of the psychology of Vygotsky and his school, passes through these founding texts. The concept of "internal form" founds the psychology of Vygotsky and his disciples. The article shows the Humboldian origin of the notion of activity (dejatelnost) by tracing it back to the famous concept of Tätigkeit in Humboldt linguistics.
{"title":"Lev Vygotski et son école : de la « paléontologie du psychisme » à la « psychologie par action »","authors":"Sergeï Tchougounnikov, Evgeny Vildanov","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0018","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article explores a number of conceptual parallels in the developments of L. Vygotski and “psychological linguistics” (Humboldt, Steinthal, Potebnia). Ideas from the nineteenth-century psycholinguistic current occupy a very important place in the conceptions of “psychology by action” of the psychological school of L. Vygotski and A. N. Leontiev. Therefore, the true understanding of the psychology of Vygotsky and his school, passes through these founding texts. The concept of \"internal form\" founds the psychology of Vygotsky and his disciples. The article shows the Humboldian origin of the notion of activity (dejatelnost) by tracing it back to the famous concept of Tätigkeit in Humboldt linguistics.","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"122 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132335295","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This comparative reading of two conceptual corpora, Russian formalism and Germano-Austrian or Germanic formalism, begins with the idea that the European formalism presents a coherent unit. The continuity of this program authorizes such a comparative reading. The comparative analysis of formalisms in Europe could be a research program aimed at an epistemological reading of the phenomenon of European formalism at the turn of the 20th century. This program deals with a rereading of two conceptual fields–Russian formalism and Germanic (Germano-Austrian) formalism. This study seeks to contextualise the formalist project within the knowledge of its time by showing its genetic links with the disciplines of this period and by introducing it as an epistemological fact. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the growth of psychologism in aesthetic theories, constitutes a reaction against the dominant scientific positivism in the “humanities” of this period. Stemming from the tensions between “aesthetics from below” and “aesthetics from above,” European formalism expresses and achieves a heterogeneous aesthetic program, halfway between “experimental science” and the “science of lived experience.”
{"title":"Russian Formalism vs Germanic Formalism: exploring the concept of European Formalism","authors":"Serge Tchougounnikov","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0009","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This comparative reading of two conceptual corpora, Russian formalism and Germano-Austrian or Germanic formalism, begins with the idea that the European formalism presents a coherent unit. The continuity of this program authorizes such a comparative reading. The comparative analysis of formalisms in Europe could be a research program aimed at an epistemological reading of the phenomenon of European formalism at the turn of the 20th century. This program deals with a rereading of two conceptual fields–Russian formalism and Germanic (Germano-Austrian) formalism. This study seeks to contextualise the formalist project within the knowledge of its time by showing its genetic links with the disciplines of this period and by introducing it as an epistemological fact. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the growth of psychologism in aesthetic theories, constitutes a reaction against the dominant scientific positivism in the “humanities” of this period. Stemming from the tensions between “aesthetics from below” and “aesthetics from above,” European formalism expresses and achieves a heterogeneous aesthetic program, halfway between “experimental science” and the “science of lived experience.”","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115630020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The article responds to the current variability of research into linguistic laws and the explanation of these laws. We show basic features to approach linguistic laws in the field of quantitative linguistics and research on linguistic laws outside the field of language and text. Language laws are usually explained in terms of the language system—especially as economizing—or of the information structure of the text (Piantadosi 2014). One of the hallmarks of the transmission of linguistic laws outside the realm of language and text is that they provide other kinds of explanations (Torre et al. 2019). We want to show that the problem of linguistics in the explanation of linguistic laws lies primarily in its inability to clarify the internal structure of language material, and the influence of the theory or method used for sample processing on the result of law analysis—which was formulated by Peter Grzybek (2006). We would like to show that this is the reason why linguistics avoids explanations of linguistic laws.
摘要本文对目前语言规律研究的多变性以及对这些规律的解释进行了回应。我们展示了定量语言学领域的语言规律研究和语言和文本领域之外的语言规律研究的基本特征。语言规律通常从语言系统(尤其是经济)或文本的信息结构来解释(Piantadosi 2014)。语言规律在语言和文本领域之外传播的标志之一是它们提供了其他类型的解释(Torre et al. 2019)。我们想表明，语言学在解释语言规律方面的问题主要在于它无法阐明语言材料的内部结构，以及用于样本处理的理论或方法对规律分析结果的影响——这是由Peter Grzybek(2006)提出的。我们想表明，这就是为什么语言学避免解释语言规律的原因。
{"title":"Explain the law: When the evidence is not enough","authors":"Martina Benesová, Dan Faltýnek, L. Zámecník","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0016","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article responds to the current variability of research into linguistic laws and the explanation of these laws. We show basic features to approach linguistic laws in the field of quantitative linguistics and research on linguistic laws outside the field of language and text. Language laws are usually explained in terms of the language system—especially as economizing—or of the information structure of the text (Piantadosi 2014). One of the hallmarks of the transmission of linguistic laws outside the realm of language and text is that they provide other kinds of explanations (Torre et al. 2019). We want to show that the problem of linguistics in the explanation of linguistic laws lies primarily in its inability to clarify the internal structure of language material, and the influence of the theory or method used for sample processing on the result of law analysis—which was formulated by Peter Grzybek (2006). We would like to show that this is the reason why linguistics avoids explanations of linguistic laws.","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126537964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The fashionable disavowal of structural semiology as logocentric is easily countered by a review of the important innovations of second-generation semiology, spearheaded by Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, and Jacques Lacan. The scope of Saussurean semiology is hampered only by its reliance upon alphabetic language and presence grounded in the voice; the assertion that semiology is a part of linguistics, rather than the reverse, does not reject the existence of nonlinguistic meaning; wordplay and textual experimentation are no mere stylistic ornamentation, but are on the contrary the key strategy of second-generation semiology for exposing the limitations of language. All three of these writers rely upon the glossematics of Louis Hjelmslev for the articulation of the concrete, non-logocentric object of general linguistics — his stratification of the Saussurean sign provides the centerpiece for the synthetic theoretical model introduced here.
{"title":"Second-Generation Semiology and Detotalization","authors":"T. Bennett","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0010","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The fashionable disavowal of structural semiology as logocentric is easily countered by a review of the important innovations of second-generation semiology, spearheaded by Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, and Jacques Lacan. The scope of Saussurean semiology is hampered only by its reliance upon alphabetic language and presence grounded in the voice; the assertion that semiology is a part of linguistics, rather than the reverse, does not reject the existence of nonlinguistic meaning; wordplay and textual experimentation are no mere stylistic ornamentation, but are on the contrary the key strategy of second-generation semiology for exposing the limitations of language. All three of these writers rely upon the glossematics of Louis Hjelmslev for the articulation of the concrete, non-logocentric object of general linguistics — his stratification of the Saussurean sign provides the centerpiece for the synthetic theoretical model introduced here.","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131385000","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract We initiate a new section of the journal, an invited commentary on issues pertaining to the fields of semiotics and linguistics and personal views on what is happening in the field. In this introduction, we assess the current status of the divisions of semiotics into multiple branches and the historical overview of the semiotics/semiology debate.
{"title":"Commentary: The status of theoretical divisions in current semiotics","authors":"C. J. R. Higuera","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0012","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We initiate a new section of the journal, an invited commentary on issues pertaining to the fields of semiotics and linguistics and personal views on what is happening in the field. In this introduction, we assess the current status of the divisions of semiotics into multiple branches and the historical overview of the semiotics/semiology debate.","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123208118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper addresses the migration theme as an embodied experience performed by myself in two installation pieces, which serve as examples to explore the notions of displacement and territory in phenomenology and semiotic of culture points of view. A mode of performed narrative within moving images attempts to imagine other existences, through cognition and body studies. Presence and politics in ageless aesthetic forms amplify a performativity experience in body and image, related to Greek Hellenic sites and Brazilian countryside landscapes. How do the visual arts act as both a reenactment of a continuous present through affected sites and a dramaturgy of the moving image, through a migrant body in continuous creation of belonging in unknown lands and seas?
{"title":"Migrant images: aesthetic imagination in experiences of displacement","authors":"Monica Toledo Silva","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0011","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper addresses the migration theme as an embodied experience performed by myself in two installation pieces, which serve as examples to explore the notions of displacement and territory in phenomenology and semiotic of culture points of view. A mode of performed narrative within moving images attempts to imagine other existences, through cognition and body studies. Presence and politics in ageless aesthetic forms amplify a performativity experience in body and image, related to Greek Hellenic sites and Brazilian countryside landscapes. How do the visual arts act as both a reenactment of a continuous present through affected sites and a dramaturgy of the moving image, through a migrant body in continuous creation of belonging in unknown lands and seas?","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130702410","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The practitioners of linguistics (in all its forms) hope to converge on tools suitable for describing all human languages within a shared terminological and conceptual framework, demarcating phenomena that lend themselves to meaningful cross-linguistic comparison from those that do not. To this end, linguists are obliged to treat languages, and speech communities, as objects of analysis. In this respect, the characteristic posture of linguistics authors vis-à-vis their readers contrasts with the non-objectifying attitude associated with Traditional Lexicography and Grammar (here called TLG). Those who write dictionaries and (normative and pedagogical) grammars that count as authoritative for various points on the literacy scale, ranging from schoolchildren to the most proficient users of the written language, address their readers as potential writers (and, crucially, as potential editors) of the language. The practices and attitudes characteristic of TLG reference a single editorial-normative community. As such, they are particularistic, but may occasionally involve more than one nation-state. Country A’s TLG workers negotiate with their counterparts in country B, to calibrate orthographic or other norms of a shared language like Dutch or German. Bilingual dictionaries operate with the TLG equipment of both the societies. As an enterprise, TLG crosses national boundaries only on this limited, transactional scale. It does not aspire to a universal scientific standpoint, and thus has no reason to objectify its language or its speech community. TLG represents, and intersubjectively addresses, only a circumscribed editorial-normative collectivity, the “we” to which its authors and readers belong. But linguistics references “us scientists of language,” a global professional network. Linguists hope to converge on a universal theoretical and descriptive framework applicable to all languages. Its scientific gaze theoretically places every language and every speech community under objective, descriptive scrutiny. The practical application of these principles has led to difficulties. We argue in this paper that these difficulties have to do with certain unresolved aspects of the relation between the ‘science’ of linguistics and the ‘cultural practice’ of TLG. Linguistics claims to deal primarily with spoken language (for linguistics to focus on written language would have made it non-universal; only a proper subset of spoken languages is wedded to writing systems). But every literate society’s TLG manages the pedagogy and the editorial-normative functioning of its written language, treating the spoken language as one implementation of the written. The task of optimizing the linguistics-TLG equation, then, is closely related to that of adequately articulating the relation between speech and writing. It is at this level that this paper hopes to contribute to the field of linguistics. We set out by adhering to the received wisdom that linguistics is an enter
{"title":"On certain consequences of the objectification of languages: a substantivist approach","authors":"P. Dasgupta","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0013","url":null,"abstract":"The practitioners of linguistics (in all its forms) hope to converge on tools suitable for describing all human languages within a shared terminological and conceptual framework, demarcating phenomena that lend themselves to meaningful cross-linguistic comparison from those that do not. To this end, linguists are obliged to treat languages, and speech communities, as objects of analysis. In this respect, the characteristic posture of linguistics authors vis-à-vis their readers contrasts with the non-objectifying attitude associated with Traditional Lexicography and Grammar (here called TLG). Those who write dictionaries and (normative and pedagogical) grammars that count as authoritative for various points on the literacy scale, ranging from schoolchildren to the most proficient users of the written language, address their readers as potential writers (and, crucially, as potential editors) of the language. The practices and attitudes characteristic of TLG reference a single editorial-normative community. As such, they are particularistic, but may occasionally involve more than one nation-state. Country A’s TLG workers negotiate with their counterparts in country B, to calibrate orthographic or other norms of a shared language like Dutch or German. Bilingual dictionaries operate with the TLG equipment of both the societies. As an enterprise, TLG crosses national boundaries only on this limited, transactional scale. It does not aspire to a universal scientific standpoint, and thus has no reason to objectify its language or its speech community. TLG represents, and intersubjectively addresses, only a circumscribed editorial-normative collectivity, the “we” to which its authors and readers belong. But linguistics references “us scientists of language,” a global professional network. Linguists hope to converge on a universal theoretical and descriptive framework applicable to all languages. Its scientific gaze theoretically places every language and every speech community under objective, descriptive scrutiny. The practical application of these principles has led to difficulties. We argue in this paper that these difficulties have to do with certain unresolved aspects of the relation between the ‘science’ of linguistics and the ‘cultural practice’ of TLG. Linguistics claims to deal primarily with spoken language (for linguistics to focus on written language would have made it non-universal; only a proper subset of spoken languages is wedded to writing systems). But every literate society’s TLG manages the pedagogy and the editorial-normative functioning of its written language, treating the spoken language as one implementation of the written. The task of optimizing the linguistics-TLG equation, then, is closely related to that of adequately articulating the relation between speech and writing. It is at this level that this paper hopes to contribute to the field of linguistics. We set out by adhering to the received wisdom that linguistics is an enter","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123838474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The method of automatic term recognition based on machine learning is focused primarily on the most important quantitative term attributes. It is able to successfully identify terms and non-terms (with success rate of more than 95 %) and find characteristic features of a term as a terminological unit. A single-word term can be characterized as a word with a low frequency that occurs considerably more often in specialized texts than in non-academic texts, occurs in a small number of disciplines, its distribution in the corpus is uneven as is the distance between its two instances. A multi-word term is a collocation consisting of words with low frequency and contains at least one single-word term. The method is based on quantitative features and it makes it possible to utilize the algorithms in multiple disciplines as well as to create cross-lingual applications (verified on Czech and English).
{"title":"Machine Learning in Terminology Extraction from Czech and English Texts","authors":"Dominika Kováríková","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0014","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The method of automatic term recognition based on machine learning is focused primarily on the most important quantitative term attributes. It is able to successfully identify terms and non-terms (with success rate of more than 95 %) and find characteristic features of a term as a terminological unit. A single-word term can be characterized as a word with a low frequency that occurs considerably more often in specialized texts than in non-academic texts, occurs in a small number of disciplines, its distribution in the corpus is uneven as is the distance between its two instances. A multi-word term is a collocation consisting of words with low frequency and contains at least one single-word term. The method is based on quantitative features and it makes it possible to utilize the algorithms in multiple disciplines as well as to create cross-lingual applications (verified on Czech and English).","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132671401","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Recent research in syntax and corpus linguistics has shown how the German Perfekt (present perfect) and Präteritum (simple past) are widely used in written language—even though these tenses are commonly described in DAF (German as a foreign language) materials as used respectively in the spoken and written forms. While these analyses only focus on written corpora, an extensive study on the use of tenses in spoken interaction is still missing. In this paper, I try to fill this gap in the literature by exploring the use of Perfekt and Präteritum in the recordings of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials, held in Frankfurt am Main, from December 20, 1963, to August 19, 1965, and available on the web page of the Fritz Bauer Institute. Textual analyses of the depositions of five former German prisoners of the Polish concentration camp show that German native speakers use both tenses in their spoken interactions. These results widely contradict their depiction in DAF materials, textbooks, and grammars. Furthermore, the types of Präteritum found are far more diverse than is traditionally held by scholars, who claimed that the use of this tense in spoken language is limited to verbs such as sein (to be), haben (to have) and modals, such as können (can), müssen (must), sollen (should), etc. The outcome of this study shows how the difference between Perfekt and Präteritum is determined by the subjective attitude of the speakers in relation to the information they want to convey.
{"title":"Grammatical Tenses and Communicative Intentions: A case study of the German Perfekt and Präteritum","authors":"Valentina Concu","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0015","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recent research in syntax and corpus linguistics has shown how the German Perfekt (present perfect) and Präteritum (simple past) are widely used in written language—even though these tenses are commonly described in DAF (German as a foreign language) materials as used respectively in the spoken and written forms. While these analyses only focus on written corpora, an extensive study on the use of tenses in spoken interaction is still missing. In this paper, I try to fill this gap in the literature by exploring the use of Perfekt and Präteritum in the recordings of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials, held in Frankfurt am Main, from December 20, 1963, to August 19, 1965, and available on the web page of the Fritz Bauer Institute. Textual analyses of the depositions of five former German prisoners of the Polish concentration camp show that German native speakers use both tenses in their spoken interactions. These results widely contradict their depiction in DAF materials, textbooks, and grammars. Furthermore, the types of Präteritum found are far more diverse than is traditionally held by scholars, who claimed that the use of this tense in spoken language is limited to verbs such as sein (to be), haben (to have) and modals, such as können (can), müssen (must), sollen (should), etc. The outcome of this study shows how the difference between Perfekt and Präteritum is determined by the subjective attitude of the speakers in relation to the information they want to convey.","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121667206","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：