Feldergrammatik in der Diskussion. Funktionaler Grammatikansatz in Sprachbeschreibung Und Sprachvermittlung
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Joachim Buscha and Renate Freudenberg-Findeisen, eds. Feldergrammatik in der Diskussion. Funktionaler Grammatikansatz in Sprachbeschreibung und Sprachvermittlung. Sprache, System und Tatigkeit, vol. 56. New York et alibi: Peter Lang, 2007. 317 pp. Index of authors. $74.95, paper.This collection, edited by Joachim Buscha and Renate Freudenberg-Findeisen, contains seventeen articles by scholars from Germany, Russia, Finland, Spain, the Czech Republic, and Denmark. They deal with various functional approaches to language description and instruction. The volume is divided into three parts and includes an introduction by the editors (pp. 7-19) and an index of authors (pp. 315-317).In their introduction, the editors summarize the main viewpoints currently expressed in discussions of grammar and grammar instruction in language teaching and point out a growing acceptance of functional (primarily communication-oriented and field-grammarbased) approaches. In providing a critical examination of onomasiologically-based grammar books available to language learners, they discuss both the advantages of field grammar and a need for its improvement, e.g., through the incorporation of authentic texts and language-learning exercises (pp. 11-12): The editors also provide a brief overview of all the articles contained in the volume (pp. 13-17).Part 1 (pp. 21-115) consists of six articles which, using Russian and German examples, examine theoretical questions and basic terms of field grammar as well as its methodological approach and conceptual categories. Problems of speech acts and the relevance of field grammar's methodological approach to contrastive studies are likewise discussed. Aleksandr V. Bondarko's article provides an overview of current research being done on the grammar of functional-semantic fields while defining terms and methodological approaches and delineating prospects for further work. Wolfgang Gladrow focuses on the contrastive analysis of languages and examines the methodological consequences of the fact that the object of research in both field grammars and synchronic contrastive analyses has been broadened to include speech acts and text types. Tatjana Parmenova presents a typology of hypothetical situations and their linguistic expression within the framework of the theory of categorial situation. Wolf-Dieter Krause argues in favour of applying field terms to speech-act types, supporting his arguments with a detailed description of the role that Russian and German infinitives play in the realization of informational and activational speech acts. The remaining essays deal with pragmatic field theory (Sabine Wilmes) and lexicographic practices like the problem of impersonality and its reflection in both unilingual and bilingual general dictionaries of Russian (Renate Belentschikow).The seven contributions in Part 2 (pp. 117-247) offer complementary views and detailed analyses of special grammatical problems, specific fields, and text types. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.013 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".