@article{Reinert2014,
title = {Relative Clauses in Colloquial and Literary German: A Contrastive Corpus-Based Study.},
author = {Tim Hirschberg and Carolin Reinert and Anna Roth and Caroline Féry},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-05-01},
journal = {Linguistische Berichte (LB)},
volume = {240},
pages = {405 - 445},
abstract = {This article focuses on the realization of relative clauses in colloquial and literary German. Two new corpora representing these different registers are compared according to quantitative, syntactic, semantic, and prosodic aspects. The main goal is to approach important issues related to relative clauses from an empirical perspective: the grammatical function of the relative pronoun (subject, object), extraposition, stacking, (non-)restrictivity, and the form of the relative clause introducer. It could be found that the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses is generally reflected in prosody. This stands in contrast to previous work (Schaffranietz 1999; Birkner 2008; Kaland & van Heuven 2010), which did not find much difference between the two types. The corpus data also suggest that the restrictive/non-restrictive distinction both has a referential (semantic) and a conceptual (discourse-pragmatic) side (cf. Fabricius-Hansen 2009), which can be independent. As for stacking, it is argued that all the consecutive relative clauses found in the corpora are instances of asyndetic conjunction. This conflicts with the assumption that stacking involves hierarchical layering, at least in case of multiple restrictive relative clauses (McCawley 1998). },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Reinert2012,
title = {Linguistische Aspekte der (Schwer-)Verständlichkeit von Vertragstexten},
author = {Carolin Reinert},
year = {2012},
date = {2012-11-01},
journal = {Linguistische Berichte (LB)},
volume = {231},
pages = {317 - 146},
abstract = {At a first glance, the topic of ,,comprehensibility“ appears to be a rather simple one: Some texts succeed in presenting a content in a comprehensible way, others do not. Then, why is it that there is still no adequate theory of comprehensibility? As matters stand, this seems to be a case of praxis preceding its own theory. The present article aims at filtering out some characteristics of comprehensible texts from the work of the Swiss law editorial department. In the end, these characteristics turn out to be an effective means to enhance particularly the structure of an insurance contract.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}