No description available.

No description available.

The assessment of pragmatic skills in a foreign or second language (L2) is usually investigated with regard to language learners, but rarely with regard to non-native language instructors, who are simultaneously teachers and (advanced) learners of the L2. With regard to English as the target language, this is a true research gap, as nonnative English-speaking teachers (non-NESTs) constitute the majority of English teachers world-wide (Kamhi-Stein 2016). Addressing this research gap, this paper presents a modified replication of Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s (1998) renowned study on grammatical vs. pragmatic awareness, carried out with non-NEST candidates. While the original study asked the participants for a global indication of (in)appropriateness/ (in)correctness and to rate its severity, the participants in the present study were asked to identify the nature of the violation and to suggest a repair. Inspired by Pfingsthorn and Flöck (2017), the data was analyzed by means of Signal Detection Theory with regard to Hits, Misses, False Alarms and Correct Rejections to gain more detailed insights into the participants’ metalinguistic perceptions. In addition, the study investigated the rate of successful repairs, showing that correct problem identification cannot necessarily be equated with adequate repair abilities. Implications for research, language teaching and language teacher education are derived.

In den heutigen Industrienationen wird für die erfolgreiche Integration in die Gesellschaft jedoch ein hohes Maß an Kommunikations-, Lese- und Schreib-kompetenzen vorausgesetzt. Es stellt sich daher die Frage, ob Menschen, die nicht ausreichend über diese Kompetenzen verfügen, angemessen in der Gesellschaft integriert sind. Insofern ist Inklusion in unserer heutigen Gesellschaft ein allgegenwärtiges Thema. Das Pilotprojekt „Barrierefreie Kommunikation im Albertinum“ ermöglicht einen Einblick in die Kommunikationsweise von Menschen mit kognitiven Einschränkungen. Mit dieser Zielgruppe wurden Gespräche über sechs verschiedene Kunstobjekte geführt. In dieser Arbeit steht die Skulptur „Ever After“ von Tony Cragg im Vordergrund. Die dazu aufgezeichneten Gespräche werden in der vorliegenden Arbeit analysiert. Es wird der Frage nachgegangen, wie Menschen mit kognitiven Einschränkungen Kunst kommunizieren. Der Begriff der Kommunikation stellt das Hauptaugenmerk dieser Arbeit dar. Lenken Menschen mit kognitiven Einschränkungen das Gespräch? Nehmen sie Ko-Konstruktionen vor? Kann eine Imagearbeit festgestellt werden? In der Gesprächsforschung gibt es bereits Studien, an deren Theorien und Ergebnissen sich orientiert wird. In der Linguistik werden Gespräche oft an natürlichen und authentischen Alltagsgesprächen untersucht und daraus leitet man bestimmte Kommunikations-Schemata ab. In dieser Arbeit werden insbesondere jene Schemata behandelt, die ein hohes Maß an kommunikativen und gesprächsstrategischen Kompetenzen erfordern. Hierunter zählen die Gesprächsmuster, als auch die Verfahren der Gesprächssteuerung und der Imagearbeit. In der Analyse wird geprüft, ob und wie Menschen mit kognitiven Einschränkungen diese anwenden. Des Weiteren tritt die Thematik Kunst in den Blickpunkt und wie sich die Proband:innen mit dem Kunstwerk auseinandersetzen. Welche Assoziationen haben sie zu dem Kunstwerk? Was sagen sie zum Herstellungsprozess? Nehmen sie eine Bewertung des Kunstwerkes vor? Diesen Fragen wird nachgegangen, um zu analysieren, inwiefern der Gesprächsgegenstand Kunst die Kommunikation der Proband:innen beeinflusst und ob sie ein Verständnis dafür entwickeln.:1. Einleitung 3 2. Das Pilotprojekt im Albertinum 6 2.1 Barrierefreie Kommunikation im Albertinum 6 2.2 Das Kunstwerk „Ever After“ von Tony Cragg 7 3. Theoretische Grundlagen 9 3.1 Kognitive Einschränkungen 9 3.2 Die Gesprächsanalyse 12 3.2.1 Einführung und Definitionen 12 3.2.2 Gesprächsmuster 15 3.2.3 Verfahren der Gesprächssteuerung 18 3.2.4 Imagearbeit 22 3.2.5 Transkription 24 3.3 Kunst kommunizieren 26 3.3.1 Situatives Kunstgespräch 26 3.3.2 Sprachliche Mittel und Verfahren 26 3.3.3 Vergleich der Analyse 28 4. Praxisbezogener Teil 29 4.1 Informationen zu den Probanden 29 4.2 Qualitative Gesprächsanalyse 29 4.2.1 Gesprächsmuster 31 4.2.2 Gesprächssteuerung 38 4.2.3 Imagearbeit 47 4.3 Kunst kommunizieren 52 4.3.1 Situatives Kunstgespräch 52 4.3.2 Sprachliche Mittel und Verfahren 53 4.3.2 Vergleich der Analyse 58 5. Schlussteil 60 6. Literaturverzeichnis 63 7. Anhang 66

My "note" is closely related to David Landau''s paper on the names of the months linguistically corresponding to "December" (this volume). It considers the onomastic status of time phrases by investigating the concepts of time and space in their interrelation. The contribution supplies reasoning that proves the existence of time as a fourth spatial dimension. Therefore the general statement that reality exists in space and time must be qualified. If time is a fourth spatial dimension, then the month‘s name “December” can be compared with a place name like "Leipzig". I suggest that there is no dichotomy between describing "Leipzig" as an onym, but "December" as an appellative only. "Leipzig" and "December" enjoy a familiar onomastic partnership. / Meine "Anmerkung" bezieht sich auf David Landaus Artikel zu Monatsnamen, die sprachhistorisch mit "December" korrespondieren (in diesem Band). Sie erörtert den onomastischen Status von Zeitausdrücken, indem sie das Verhältnis von Zeit und Raum in ihrer Wechselbeziehung untersucht. Der Beitrag legt eine Beweisführung dar, die die Existenz von Zeit als vierte Dimension des Raumes versteht. Daher muss die allgemeine Feststellung, dass die Realität in Zeit und Raum existiert, präzisiert werden. Wenn Zeit eine vierte räumliche Dimension darstellt, dann ist der Monatsname "December" mit einem Ortsnamen wie "Leipzig" vergleichbar. Ich schlage daher vor, die Dichotomie zwischen der Beschreibung von „Leipzig“ als Onym, aber "December" nur als Appellativum, aufzuheben. So können sich "Leipzig" und "December" einer vertrauten onomastischen Partnerschaft erfreuen.

When entering the Carpathian Basin in the 9th century, the Hungarians found a decisively Slavic population on the territory, so toponyms were formed based on the already existing toponymic system. Hungarian toponymic research has been able to reconstruct toponyms from the period prior to the Hungarian conquest only very scarcely and ambiguously – as opposed to the names of larger rivers, which show strong continuity, going back to very early times. The toponyms of the Carpathian Basin, in connection with the formation of the settlement structures of Hungarians, can almost exclusively be documented from the period after the Hungarian conquest. However, the Carpathian Basin became a “meeting point of the peoples” in the centuries after the conquest in 896 and as such, numerous ethnics and languages could be found here: Slavic peoples and Germans settled in larger blocks, while smaller groups of Turkish people, such as Cumans and Pechenegs, and some Neo-Latin peoples (Walloons and later Rumanians) also contributed to the ethnic and linguistic diversity in the area. The layering of different peoples and languages influenced toponyms too, which also allows us to investigate language contacts of the time. This is the main concern of my paper, with special focus on the question of how these phenomena can be connected to issues of language prestige in the Middle Ages.

In cognitive linguistics, a paragon is described as an individual member of a category who represents either an ideal or its opposite. Paragons make it easier for us to identify a complex content, and we therefore have a great deal of interest in experiencing paragons. Lady Gaga is, for example, a paragon name in the field of pop music; Lehman (Brothers) is a paragon of the biggest bank failures in history and is used by many people to comprehend the unfolding of the late-2000s global financial crisis. Shared knowledge and socio-cultural backgrounds of language users are especially important when paragons from different fields or disciplines enter today’s business discourse. Examples include the Lady Gaga of the Contract Manufacturing Business, the Lehman of Livestock, the Donald Trump of sweeping up or the Apple of Hollywood. The comprehension process involves metonymic and metaphoric relationships which highlight or hide particular aspects of the paragon. The present paper attempts to show that the information conveyed by the paragon serves primarily to indicate the speaker’s or writer’s attitude towards the referent rather than being intended to help the hearer identify complex economic issues. It is argued that the use of a paragon leads to a somewhat bleached or reduced conceptualisation of the referent. The paper will also address theoretical and methodological challenges presented by studying paragon names in their respective discourse environments. The focus will be on qualitative rather than quantitative results. The data are all attested examNamen als Erklärungsmodelle im Kontext der Wirtschaft 383 ples collected from the Internet, unless otherwise stated. In addition, results from a survey carried out with students at Magdeburg University will be used for comparison.

The oldest forms of the place-name Leipzig, i.e. Libzi, Libiz vel sim., are now generally assumed to be Slavic, i.e. Old Sorabian derivatives of an older river-name, probably of Germanic origin. At the basis of this river-name is thought to be an enlarged root PIE *lei̯‑bh‑ ‘to flow, drip’. As the concept of root enlargement is somewhat problematic and should thus better be abandoned, it is claimed here – based on a recently published idea for the etymologization of the name of the river Elbe – that this assumed Germanic river-name is a derivative of an unenlarged root with the suffix PIE *‑bho‑. This suffix was used to form colour adjectives on the one hand and action nouns vel sim. on the other. Theoretical proto-forms of the river-name are PIE *h2lei̯H‑bho‑ or *h2liH‑bho‑ ‘making/being dirty/filthy’, PIE *lei̯H‑bho‑ or *liH‑bho‑ ‘nestling up against, winding itself’, PIE *lei̯H‑bho‑ or *liH‑bho‑ ‘pouring out’ (→ ‘flowing’?), PIE *lei̯h2‑bho‑ or *lih2‑bho‑ ‘dwindling, disappearing’, PIE *(s)lei̯H‑bho‑ or *(s)liH‑bho‑ ‘blue(ish)’, and PIE *(s)lei̯‑bho‑ ‘slippery, slimy’. A further theoretical possibility is the reconstruction as PIE *lei̯p-o‑ ‘sticky’ vel sim. (> ‘muddy’?). And finally, a reconstruction seems possible regarding the whole name not as a derivative, but as a compound with PIE *‑h2p-o‑ (the zero-grade of PIE *h2ep- ‘water’) as the second member. In this case, the same roots which form the bases of the derivatives are used as the first members of these compounds. All proposals show semantics acceptable for the formation of river-names. Thus no final decision between these proposals is possible.

To date, toponomastic surveys in the German speech area were mainly etymological. Now, a recently engineered prototype of a cartographic programme provides new possibilities for analyzing settlement names in Germany to follow morphological, phonological, and graphematical questions. This paper aims at illustrating the benefit of this programme by the example of settlement names with differing addendums. They can be written with hyphen (e. g., Groß-Zimmern), with space (Groß Grönau), or in compound spelling (Großopitz). Unexpectedly clear regional preferences for these types of spelling appeared: Settlement names with space are found in Northern Germany, whereas the compound spelling is preferentially used in the South. In Hessen and Rheinhessen, the writing with hyphen is predominant. These conventions of spelling must have developed during the last 200 years.

This article is based on a speech delivered in Vienna on the occasion of Peter Wiesinger’s 75th birthday. It deals in four chapters with the current state of research on Upper German onomastics. Against the background of Peter Wiesinger’s extensive onomastic work, the article seeks on the one hand to evaluate onomastic basic research with its linguistic and interdisciplinary evaluation, and on the other hand attempts to promote the popularisation of what the world of scholarship knows today about place names.