Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (15) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
- Sprachliche Universalien (15) (remove)
Das Ziel dieser Arbeit besteht zunächst darin, in einem 1. Teil das Phänomen 'Zahlklassifikator' zu explizieren und an Beispielen – vornehmlich aus den Sprachen Südostasiens – zu erläutern. Im 2. Teil werden dann Sprachen Ozeaniens und Mayasprachen Mittelamerikas, die nicht als 'typische' Klassifikatorsprachen gelten, dargestellt und anhand der im 10 Teil entwickelten Begriffe, diskutiert. Den Ausgangspunkt der Überlegungen bildet die Arbeit von Greenberg (1972) über Zahlklassifikatoren, deren Thesen im 1. Teil dargestellt und kommentiert werden. Die theoretische Grundlage dieser Arbeit ist die Universalienkonzeption, wie sie dem Kölner Forschungsprojekt für Universalien und Typologie (UNITYF) zugrunde liegt. Der besondere Rahmen, in dem die Bearbeitung dieses Themas steht, ist die Dimension der 'Individuation', bei der es um Prozesse zur 'Erfassung von Gegenständen' geht. (Zu den theoretischen Grundlagen von UNITYF und dem Begriff der Dimension siehe Seiler (1977 (a) und (b).)
In an earlier paper, I proposed a system for evaluating the relative descriptivity of lexical items in a consistent manner in terms of the interrelations of three metrics. The first of these, including five possible degrees of descriptivity, is based on the premise that the sum of the meaningful parts of a given form is or is not equal to the meaning of the whole. The second, also composed of five degrees, is based on paraphrase-term relations in which the logical quantifiers: all, some and no, are applied to the terms of the paraphrase in one test and to the meaningful parts of the term (linguistic form) in the reversibility test. Both tests are applied in the form of logical propositions. The third metric, with three degrees, deals with the relative explicitness of the meaningful parts of a given form: explicit, implicit or neither. […] This system was then tested in a pilot study involving the fairly limited and semantically homogeneous lexical domain of body-part terms in a specific language, Finnish. The purpose of the present paper is to subject comparable data from other languages to the same kind of analysis and compare the results in order to ascertain whether the generalizations arrived at with the Finnish data also hold for the other languages or, more specifically, which of these generalizations are more or less universal and which language or language-type specific? The additional languages to be examined here are: French, German, Ewe, Maasai and Swahili.
In this paper we test previous claims concerning the universality of patterns of polysemy and semantic change in perception verbs. Implicit in such claims are two elements: firstly, that the sharing of two related senses A and B by a given form is cross-linguistically widespread, and matched by a complementary lack of some rival polysemy, and secondly that the explanation for the ubiquity of a given pattern of polysemy is ultimately rooted in our shared human cognitive make-up. However, in comparison to the vigorous testing of claimed universals that has occurred in phonology, syntax and even basic lexical meaning, there has been little attempt to test proposed universals of semantic extension against a detailed areal study of non-European languages. To address this problem we examine a broad range of Australian languages to evaluate two hypothesized universals: one by Viberg (1984), concerning patterns of semantic extension across sensory modalities within the domain of perception verbs (i .e. intra-field extensions), and the other by Sweetser (1990), concerning the mapping of perception to cognition (i.e. trans-field extensions). Testing against the Australian data allows one claimed universal to survive, but demolishes the other, even though both assign primacy to vision among the senses.