Romanische Schriftsysteme im Vergleich: Französisch und Spanisch

Meisenburg, Trudel

doi:10.1515/9783111372266.251

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the Romance languages, the correspondences of <c> and <g> differ depending on the following vowel. Meisenburg (1996) showed that Early Latin had three different spellings for /k/: <C> before <E> and <I>, <K> before <A> and <Q> before <O> and <V>. The letter <K> was later lost in Latin spelling; for Meisenburg, these are too many letters for one sound.…”

Section: And In Romance Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visible verbal morphology: Morpheme constancy in Germanic and Romance verbal inflection

Fuhrhop

2020

Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In different spelling systems, different grades of morpheme constancy can be found: German has a high degree of morpheme constancy (especially stem constancy, for example rennen – rennt both forms with <nn>), while English has comparatively less (running – run, only the disyllabic form with <nn>). This paper investigates the interaction between stems and verbal inflectional suffixes in terms of constancy in three Germanic languages (Dutch, English, German) and five Romance languages (French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish). Verbal inflection is always the most widespread inflection, so it is a well-defined area for getting an idea of how spelling systems may function. For the Germanic languages, this analysis will primarily focus on the alternation between monosyllabic and disyllabic forms. For the Romance languages, it will focus on the <c>/ <g>-alternations in interaction with the following vowel. The aim is to describe a scale of morphological spelling: The alternation of <c> and <ç> is not an instance of constancy, but of similarity, something between constancy and non-constancy. Morpheme constancy is no longer a binary feature. Comparing verbal inflection takes us another step towards the development of typological parameters for visible morphology.

show abstract

Section: And In Romance Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visible verbal morphology: Morpheme constancy in Germanic and Romance verbal inflection

Fuhrhop

2020

Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dieser Abschnitt ist der Frage nach der Realisierung des tiefen orthographischen Systems des Französischen (cf. Meisenburg 1996) Meisenburg 1996: 27), da die lautlichen Realisierungen der funktionalen Morpheme z.T. seit dem 13.…”

Section: Funktionale Morphemkonstanzunclassified

Anything goes?

Dürscheid¹,

Stark²

2013

Die Schnittstelle Von Morphologie Und Geschriebener Sprache

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anything goes? SMS, phonographisches Schreiben und Morphemkonstanz Einleitung: ‚Anything goes'? "ish cool xi mal wieder chli mit dir zplaudere hüt ... und nei ich bin kein stalker ;-)", beendet Larissa einen Chat im Internet in jugendsprachlichem Neuschweizerdeutsch. Ein Satz wie er heute in Internetforen von jungen Schweizerinnen und Schweizern tausendfach ges c h ri e b e n w i r d. D i e s e A r t d e r s c h r i f t l i ch e n K o m m u ni k a t i o n l ä s s t z u w e i l e n ni ch t n u r Deutschlehrern die Haare zu Berge stehen. Denn die Sätze spotten meist allen Regeln der orthografischen Kunst.

show abstract

“…(vgl. Feldbusch 1985;Günter 1988;Meisenburg 1996;Koch/ Oesterreicher 2001, 615-618;Dürscheid 2006, Kap. 1.4., bes.…”

Section: Zum Medialen Aspekt Von Mündlichkeit Und Schriftlichkeitunclassified

Schriftlichkeit und kommunikative Distanz

Koch¹,

Oesterreicher²

2007

Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fundamental distinction between the medial problem of 'phonic' vs. 'graphic' realisation of discourses, on the one hand, and the conceptional problem of their 'spoken = informal' vs. 'written = formal' character (denominated 'communicative immediacy' vs. 'distance' in the following) not only constitutes a sound theoretical basis for investigation into orality and literacy, but also leads to a better understanding of a wide range of synchronic and diachronic phenomena concerning language. The medial-conceptional distinction accounts, for example, for important problems on the level of discourse typology, comprising, for instance, 'elaborated' types of primary orality, communicative dynamics in medieval societies, modern types of electronic communication (e-mail, SMS message, chat), etc. Once it is to clearly tell the medial from the conceptional aspect of language, it is, of course, legitimate to observe the most interesting interactions between these two. The idea of a conceptional continuum between communicative 'immediacy' and 'distance' constitutes also an important contribution to variational linguistics and sociolinguistics. It can be shown that this continuum is not only one dimension of linguistic variation, but the central principle underlying the organisation of variational spaces (within one language) and of communicative spaces (involving more than one language). Moreover, the medial-conceptional distinction reveals to be of paramount importance to a modern conception of language history as observing the transformation of whole variational spaces. The questions that can be dealt with here comprise the way to literacy, processes of elaboration, Überdachung, standardization, codification, reorganization of variational spaces, etc. as well as several types of language change. Finally, a clear conceptualization of medial and conceptional problems is indispensable for a sound methodology in corpus linguistics.Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries Authenticated Download Date | 5/28/15 2:46 PM [...] il ne faut pas oublier que l'opposition entre une langue littéraire traditionnelle et le parler quotidien ne se confond nullement avec celle, beaucoup plus tranchée, qui existe entre forme primaire parlée et forme secondaire graphique: la forme .parlée' est-ce que connaît une expression graphique aussi bien qu'orale, et le passé simple ils dévorèrent se prononce aussi bien qu'il s'écrit (1960, 160). Was Martinet -terminologisch noch halbherzig -herauszustellen versucht, ist letztlich nichts anderes als die von Tullio de Mauro vorgeschlagene doppelte Begriffsopposition zwischen ,gesprochen/geschrieben' und .informal/formal' (wie man sie später dann beispielsweise auch bei Wallace L. Chafe 1982, 36 und passim, antrifft): In realtà, tanto l'uso scritto quanto il parlato possono oscillare tra uso formale e uso informale della lingua: queste due nozioni, meno note e adoperate delle nozioni di .lingua scritta' e .lingua parlata', meritano forse una più attenta considerazione (De Mauro 1970,176).Man ver...

show abstract

Romanische Schriftsysteme im Vergleich: Französisch und Spanisch

Cited by 5 publications

References 3 publications

Visible verbal morphology: Morpheme constancy in Germanic and Romance verbal inflection

Visible verbal morphology: Morpheme constancy in Germanic and Romance verbal inflection

Anything goes?

Schriftlichkeit und kommunikative Distanz

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About