4 |
EMU Speech Database System ... : praxisorientierte Weiterentwicklung der Funktionalität, Benutzerfreundlichkeit und Interoperabilität sowie die Aufbereitung des Kiel Corpus als EMU-Sprachdatenbank ...
|
|
John, Tina. - : Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 2012
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
16 |
Do Rhythm Measures Tell us Anything about Language Type?
|
|
|
|
In: Proceedings of the 15th Internaional Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona 3-9 August 2003 ; https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00117587 ; 2003, pp.2693-2696 (2003)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
17 |
Internationalisierung der Hochschulen. Eine Evaluation im Verbund Norddeutscher Universitäten ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
18 |
Internationalisierung der Hochschulen. Eine Evaluation im Verbund Norddeutscher Universitäten
|
|
|
|
In: Die Hochschule : Journal für Wissenschaft und Bildung 12 (2003) 1, S. 109-126 (2003)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
19 |
On focus and VP-deletion
|
|
|
|
In: http://storage.sk.uni-bonn.de/publications/snippets5006.pdf (2002)
|
|
Abstract:
Kratzer (1991) discusses syntactic restrictions on the construction of focus alternatives in the sense of Rooth 1992. She presents an example with a focus in the antecedent of a deleted VP. (d0) Peter: What a copy cat you are! You went to Block Island because I did. You went to Elk Lake Lodge because I did. And you went to Tanglewood because I did. Jane: I only went to TANGLEWOOD because you did. By reconstructing the deleted VP, Jane´s objection becomes I only went to TANGLEWOOD because you went to TANGLEWOOD. For this sentence standard alternative semantics al-lows for the construction of an alternative set A0 which comprises predicates like went to Block Island because Peter went to Block Island and went to Block Island because Peter went to Tanglewood, i.e. predicates of the form went to x because Peter went to y. Jane´s objection therefore excludes that she went to Tanglewood because Peter went to Block Island. Kratzer claims that this is not intended. The alternative set (A1) may only comprise predi-cates of the form went to x because Peter went to x. This restriction is due to syntactic, and not contextual reasons. In constructing an alternative set the focus in a formerly deleted VP must always be replaced by the same value as the corresponding focus in the antecedent VP. Kratzer´s view is widely accepted. We did an experiment to test whether listeners always interpret utterances like Jane´s ac-cording to Kratzer´s hypothesis. We integrated a German analogue of Jane´s objection into two different German dialogues (d1,d2). As there is no VP-deletion in German, the German and English examples differ in their anaphoric means. The English example employs VP-deletion, the German ones pronominal anaphora. We placed the dialogues into a context where Peter went to Berlin (resp. Tanglewood), which inspired Jane, who then went to Dort-mund (Block Island), Kiel (Elk Lake Lodge) and Berlin. After she came back, Peter went to
|
|
Keyword:
Kiel and Dortmund; too
|
|
URL: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.624.3969 http://storage.sk.uni-bonn.de/publications/snippets5006.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
|