Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (15)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Preprint (1)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (19) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (19)
Keywords
- Sprachliche Universalien (19) (remove)
Die folgende Studie steht in Verbindung mit einer intersprachlichen Untersuchung zu der Dimension des sprachlichen Erfassens von Gegenständen im Rahmen des Kölner Projekts für Universalienforschung und Typologie (UNITYP). Im ersten Kapitel werden die zugrundeliegenden theoretischen Begriffe der sprachlichen Universalien und Typologie sowie die Dimension des Erfassens von Gegenständen kurz erörtert, um die Ziele dieser Arbeit in Beziehung zum Forschungsplan des UNITYPs zu setzen. Im zweiten Kapitel wird das Phänomen klassifikatorischer Verben zunächst definiert, und dann werden Systeme klassifikatorischer Verben in ausgewählten Einzelsprachen beschrieben. Abschließend wird der Versuch gemacht, zu zeigen, inwieweit die für eine Einzelsprache beschriebene Erscheinung ein typologisches Charakteristikum der betreffenden Sprachfamilie bzw. Sprachgruppe ist, um damit die Verbreitung von klassifikatorischen Verben in nordamerikanischen Indianersprachen vorläufig abzustecken. Im dritten Kapitel werden Verallgemeinerungen aus den im zweiten Kapitel vorgelegten Daten gezogen, um eine vorläufige typologische Beschreibung der Erscheinung "klassifikatorische Verben" zu erzielen und somit ihre Stellung in der Dimension des Erfassens von Gegenständen sowie in einer konzept-orientierten Typologie zu charakterisieren.
The distribution of linguistic structures in the world is the joint product of universal principles, inheritance from ancestor languages, language contact, social structures, and random fluctuation. This paper proposes a method for evaluating the relative significance of each factor — and in particular, of universal principles — via regression modeling: statistical evidence for universal principles is found if the odds for families to have skewed responses (e.g. all or most members have postnominal relative clauses) as opposed to having an opposite response skewing or no skewing at all, is significantly higher for some condition (e.g. VO order) than for another condition, independently of other factors.
Language universals are statements that are true of all languages, for example: “all languages have stop consonants”. But beneath this simple definition lurks deep ambiguity, and this triggers misunderstanding in both interdisciplinary discourse and within linguistics itself. A core dimension of the ambiguity is captured by the opposition “absolute vs. statistical universal”, although the literature uses these terms in varied ways. Many textbooks draw the boundary between absolute and statistical according to whether a sample of languages contains exceptions to a universal. But the notion of an exception-free sample is not very revealing even if the sample contained all known languages: there is always a chance that an as yet undescribed language, or an unknown language from the past or future, will provide an exception.
The present article illustrates that the specific articulatory and aerodynamic requirements for voiced but not voiceless alveolar or dental stops can cause tongue tip retraction and tongue mid lowering and thus retroflexion of front coronals. This retroflexion is shown to have occurred diachronically in the three typologically unrelated languages Dhao (Malayo-Polynesian), Thulung (Sino-Tibetan), and Afar (East-Cushitic). In addition to the diachronic cases, we provide synchronic data for retroflexion from an articulatory study with four speakers of German, a language usually described as having alveolar stops. With these combined data we supply evidence that voiced retroflex stops (as the only retroflex segments in a language) did not necessarily emerge from implosives, as argued by Haudricourt (1950), Greenberg (1970), Bhat (1973), and Ohala (1983). Instead, we propose that the voiced front coronal plosive /d/ is generally articulated in a way that favours retroflexion, that is, with a smaller and more retracted place of articulation and a lower tongue and jaw position than /t/.
The search for universals is a tendency which is based in the structure of human knowledge and which correlates with a complementary search for individual properties. The recurrence to universals is inherent in both classificatory and deductive knowledge. Admittingly, the attempt to classify the definitorial universals of human language hierarchically meets various difficulties. In contrast to the universals of the formal systems of logic and mathematics, the universals of human language are of a heterogeneous character. Often the relation among the universals of language is not to be determined merely as a relation of logical compatibility or implication, but, additionally, as a relation of means and end. Not everything which is logically possible according to certain basic universals of language is also realized by the languages. Beyond the logical possibilities linguistics must recognize structural, perceptual and cognitive restrictions. – Universal properties have the merit that they are, presumably, more fundamental in the language system than the mere particular properties. – One of the important discoveries of the more recent investigation in language universals is that diversities, in particular certain types of interlingual inversions and gradual distinctions in the development of a dimension, are also subject to universal laws. – As a motive for research in language universals, which is also a motive for the opposed inquiry in linguistic relativity, one must ultimately consider a psycho-sociological factor. According to the level at which one seeks identification with a gruppe (ethnocentric or anthropocentric) one will be more likely to advocate a constrative linguistics (in the broadest sense of the term) or a universal linguistics.
Der unmittelbare Anlaß der folgenden etwas scholastisch anmutenden Begriffsdistinktionen war die Erfahrung mit der Vorbereitung und dem Verlauf der Sektionssitzung zum Thema "Der Universalienstreit heute" am 16. Weltkongreß für Philosophie 1978 in Düsseldorf. Die Mehrheit der Philosophen assoziierte das Thema mit dem traditionellen Streit zwischen Nominalisten, Konzeptualisten und Realisten und nicht mit der in der Linguistik seit zwei Jahrzehnten neu angefachten Problematik, die in der traditionellen Philosophie unter dem Titel Grammatica universalis behandelt worden war. Darüber hinaus wurde allermeist gar nicht realisiert, daß der Terminus universal in den beiden Themenkreisen auch in formaler Hinsicht nicht im gleichen Sinn gebraucht wird {vgl. § ll}. Eine Konsultation der wissenschaftstheoretischen Literatur ergab dann, daß in ihr, bei aller Oberproduktion von Textbüchern und Sammelbänden, universal und sein ganzes Wortfeld kaum je explizit und systematisch diskutiert und definiert wird. Gewöhnlich hält man sich an die in der klassischen Logik geläufige Unterscheidung zwischen generellen, universalen, partikulären und singulären Aussagen (vgl. § 9.1.) oder an die kantianische zwischen generalen (induktiven) und universalen (deduktiven) Aussagen (vgl. § 9.3.). Neu in den Vordergrund gerückte Gesichtspunkte in der formalen Struktur von allgemeinen wissenschaftlichen Aussagen (vgl. § 9.4.) werden dagegen kaum reflektiert und terminologisch fixiert. Dies gilt insbesondere für den linguistischen Bereich, dessen Probleme und Leistungen in der allgemeinen Wissenschaftstheorie trotz aller Achtungsbezeugungen kaum einen Niederschlag gefunden haben. Die folgenden Ausführungen sind daher auch als ein bescheidener, nämlich bloß terminologischer und begriffsdefinitorischer Beitrag zur Sch1ießung dieser Lücke intendiert.
Implikative Universalien, linguistische Prinzipien und Sprachtypologie / J.C.P. Auer, Wilfried Kuhn
(1977)
Wir wollen in diesem Aufsatz die Möglichkeiten typologischer Forschung prüfen, die sich aus Greenbergs Aufsatz "Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements" ergeben. Greenbergs primäres Interesse ist nicht typologisch, sondern an der Universalienforschung orientiert. Er ermittelt aus einem 'sample' von 30 Sprachen 45 implikative Universalien der allgemeinen Form V(x) [A(x) → B(x)], wobei A und B beliebige sprachliche Merkmale sind und über die Menge aller Sprachen x quantifiziert wird. Überdies versucht Greenberg die relativ große Zahl von implikativen Universalien unter eine kleine Zahl von sog. Prinzipien ('principles') zu subsummieren, die allgemeine Bauprinzipien von Sprachen darstellen sollen und so Erklärungscharakter für die empirisch gewonnenen Universalien haben. Typologie wird von Greenberg zunächst nur in einem klassifizierenden Sinn verstanden; die Verteilung der untersuchten Merkmale in der Stichprobe von 30 Sprachen klassifiziert diese in solche, in denen das Merkmal anzutreffen ist und solche, in denen es nicht anzutreffen ist. Im folgenden wird zu zeigen sein, daß darüber hinaus auch auf der Ebene der Universalien und der Ebene der Prinzipien typologische Ansätze möglich sind.
The basic idea I want to develop and to substantiate in this paper consists in replacing – where necessary – the traditional concept of linguistic category or linguistic relation understood as 'things', as reified hypostases, by the more dynamic concept of dimension. A dimension of language structure is not coterminous with one single category or relation but, instead, accommodates several of them. It corresponds to certain well circumscribed purposive functions of linguistic activity as well as to certain definite principles and techniques for satisfying these functions. The true universals of language are represented by these dimensions, principles, and techniques which constitute the true basis for non-historical inter-language comparison. The categories and relations used in grammar are condensations – hypostases as it were – of such dimensions, principles, and techniques. Elsewhere I have outlined the theory which I want to test here in a case study.
The aim of this contribution is to embed the question of an antinomy between "integral" vs. "partial typology", inscribed as the topic of this plenary session, into the comprehensive framework of the dimensional model of the research group on language universals and typology (UNITYP). In this introductory section I shall evoke some cardinal points in the theory of linguistic typology, as viewed "from outside", viz. on the basis of striking parallelisms with psychological typology. Section 2 will permit a brief look on the dimensional model of UNITYP. In section 3 I shall present an illustration of a typological treatment on the basis of one particular dimension. In section 4 I shall draw some conclusions with special reference to the "integral vs. partial" antinomy.
The Stanford Project on Language Universals began its activities in October 1967 and brought them to an end in August 1976. Its directors were Joseph H. Greenberg and Charles A. Ferguson. The Cologne Project on Language Universals and Typology [with particular reference to functional aspects], abbreviated UNITYP, had its early beginnings in 1972, but deployed its full activities from 1976 onwards and is still operating. This writer, who is the principal investigator, had the privilege of collaborating with the Stanford Project during spring of 1976. […] One of the leading Greenbergian ideas is that of implicational generalizations, has been integrated as a fundamental principle in the construction of continua and of universal dimensions as proposed by UNITYP. It is hoped that the following considerations on numeral systems will be apt to bear witness to this situation. They would be unthinkable without Greenberg’s pioneering work on "Generalizations about numeral systems" (Greenberg 1978: 249 ff., henceforth referred to as Greenberg, NS). Further work on this domain and on other comparable domains almost inevitably leads one to the view that generalizations of the Greenberg type have a functional significance and that a dimensional framework is apt to bring this to the fore. This is the view on linguistic behaviour as being purposeful, and on language as a problem- solving device. The problem consists in the linguistic representation of cognitive-conceptual ideas. The solution is represented by the corresponding linguistic structures in their diversity and the task of the linguist consists in reconstructing the program and subprograms underlying the process of problem-solving. It is claimed that the construct of continua and of universal dimensions makes these programs intelligible.