German today : an extensive speech data collection in the German speaking area of Europe
The research project “German Today” aims to determine the amount of regional variation in (near-) standard German spoken by young and older educated adults, and to identify and locate the regional features. To this end, an extensive corpus of read...
mehr
|
Volltext:
|
|
|
Zitierfähiger Link:
|
|
|
The research project “German Today” aims to determine the amount of regional variation in (near-) standard German spoken by young and older educated adults, and to identify and locate the regional features. To this end, an extensive corpus of read and spontaneous speech is currently being compiled. German is a so-called pluricentric language. With our corpus we aim to determine whether national or regional standards really exist. Furthermore, the linguistic variation due to different contextual styles (read vs. spontaneous speech) shall be analysed. Finally, the corpus will enable us to investigate whether linguistic change has occurred in the domain of the German standard language. The main focus of all research questions is on phonetic variation (lexical variation is only of minor interest). Read and spontaneous speech of four secondary school students (aged seventeen to twenty) and two fifty- to sixt-year-olds is recorded in 160 cities throughout the German-speaking area of Europe. All participants read a number of short texts and word lists, name pictures, translate from English, and take part in a sociobiographic interview and a map task experiment. The resulting corpus will comprise over 1000 hours of orthographically and (in part) phonetically transcribed speech.
|
| Export in Literaturverwaltung |
|
Zur Aussprache nicht haupttoniger Vorsilben mit <e> in Lehnwörtern im deutschen Gebrauchsstandard
Vortoniges <e> in Lehnwörtern in offenen Silben (demonstrieren, Elefant) ist in den traditionellen deutschen Aussprachewörterbüchern durchgängig mit gespanntem/geschlossenem [e] kodifiziert. Die Auswertung von insgesamt 17 entsprechenden Belegwörtern...
mehr
|
Volltext:
|
|
|
Zitierfähiger Link:
|
|
|
Vortoniges <e> in Lehnwörtern in offenen Silben (demonstrieren, Elefant) ist in den traditionellen deutschen Aussprachewörterbüchern durchgängig mit gespanntem/geschlossenem [e] kodifiziert. Die Auswertung von insgesamt 17 entsprechenden Belegwörtern aus dem Korpus „Deutsch heute“ zeigt für den deutschen Gebrauchsstandard jedoch eine ausgeprägte Variation zwischen den Lauttypen [e], [ɛ] und [ə], die je nach Lexem in ganz unterschiedlichen Anteilen vorkommen. Als Erklärungsansätze für das differierende Variationsverhalten lassen sich Faktoren wie Wortakzentmuster, Folgekonsonanz, Formalitätsgrad und semantisch-morphologische Durchsichtigkeit der Wortbildung anführen. Außerdem zeigt die Variation auch eine ausgeprägte diatopische Dimension: Während im Norden Deutschlands, aber auch im mittelbairisch geprägten Sprachraum und in der Ostschweiz die [e]-Aussprache dominiert, überwiegen in der südlichen Mitte und im Südwesten Deutschlands, im südbairisch geprägten Sprachraum und vor allem in der Westschweiz Belege mit [ɛ]-Aussprache. Die Ergebnisse von „Deutsch heute“ zeigen sich in ähnlicher Weise auch in zusätzlich ausgewerteten Sprachdaten (Nachrichtensendungen, FOLK-Korpus).
|
Unterschiede bei Dialektübersetzungen in Abhängigkeit von schriftlichen und mündlichen Stimuli
When collecting linguistic data using translation tasks, stimuli can be presented in written or in oral form. In doing so, there is a possibility that a systematic source of error can occur that can be traced back to the selected survey method and...
mehr
|
Volltext:
|
|
|
Zitierfähiger Link:
|
|
|
When collecting linguistic data using translation tasks, stimuli can be presented in written or in oral form. In doing so, there is a possibility that a systematic source of error can occur that can be traced back to the selected survey method and which can influence the results of the translation tasks. This contribution investigates whether and to what extent both of the aforementioned survey methods result in divergent results when using translation tasks. For this investigation, 128 informants provided linguistic data; each informant had to translate 25 Wenker sentences from Standard German into either East Swabian, Lechrain or West Central Bavarian dialect, as the case may be. The results show two tendencies. First, written stimuli lead to a slightly higher number of dialectal translation in segmental variables. Second, when oral stimuli are used, syntactic and lexical variables are translated significantly more often in such a manner that they diverge from the template. The results can be explained in terms of varying cognitive processing operations and the constraints of human working memory. When collecting data in the future, these tendencies should be taken into account.
|
Dialektübersetzungen in Abhängigkeit von schriftlichen und mündlichen Stimuli
When collecting linguistic data using translation tasks, stimuli can be presented in written or in oral form. In doing so, there is a possibility that a systematic source of error can occur that can be traced back to the selected survey method and...
mehr
|
Volltext:
|
|
|
Zitierfähiger Link:
|
|
|
When collecting linguistic data using translation tasks, stimuli can be presented in written or in oral form. In doing so, there is a possibility that a systematic source of error can occur that can be traced back to the selected survey method and which can influence the results of the translation tasks. This contribution investigates whether and to what extent both of the aforementioned survey methods result in divergent results when using translation tasks. For this investigation, 128 informants provided linguistic data; each informant had to translate 25 Wenker sentences from Standard German into either East Swabian, Lechrain or West Central Bavarian dialect, as the case may be. The results show two tendencies. First, written stimuli lead to a slightly higher number of dialectal translation in segmental variables. Second, when oral stimuli are used, syntactic and lexical variables are translated significantly more often in such a manner that they diverge from the template. The results can be explained in terms of varying cognitive processing operations and the constraints of human working memory. When collecting data in the future, these tendencies should be taken into account.
|
