Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Report (58) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (58) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (58)
Keywords
- Deutsch (4)
- Grammatik (3)
- Indogermanische Sprachen (3)
- Slawische Sprachen (3)
- Uralische Sprachen (3)
- Baltoslawische Sprachen (2)
- Bibliographie (2)
- Germanistische Linguistik (2)
- Inuktitut (2)
- Lexikologie (2)
Institute
- Neuere Philologien (2)
- Extern (1)
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.
Indo-European is a branch of Indo-Uralic which was radically transformed under the influence of a North Caucasian substratum when its speakers moved from the area north of the Caspian Sea to the area north of the Black Sea (cf. Kortlandt 2007b). As a result, Indo-European developed a minimal vowel system combined with a very large consonant inventory including glottalized stops, also grammatical gender and adjectival agreement, an ergative construction which was lost again but has left its traces in the grammatical system, especially in the nominal inflection, a construction with a dative subject which was partly preserved in the historical languages and is reflected in the verbal morphology and syntax, where it gave rise to new categories, and a heterogeneous lexicon. The Indo-Uralic elements of Indo-European include pronouns, case endings, verbal endings, participles and derivational suffixes. In the following I shall give an overview of the grammar of Proto-Indo-European as it may have been spoken around 4000 BC in the eastern Ukraine, shortly after the ancestors of the Anatolians left for the Balkans (for more recent developments I refer to Beekes 1995).
There is every reason to welcome the revised edition (2009) of Thomas Olander’s dissertation (2006), which I have criticized elsewhere (2006). The book is very well written and the author has a broad command of the scholarly literature. I have not found any mistakes in Olander’s rendering of other people’s views. This makes the book especially useful as an introduction to the subject. It must be hoped that the easy access to a complex set of problems which this book offers will have a stimulating effect on the study of Balto-Slavic accentology.
In hindsight, the debate about presupposition following Frege’s discovery that the referential function of names and definite descriptions depended on the fulfillment of an existence and a uniqueness condition was curiously limited for a very long time. On the one hand, it was only in the 1960s that linguists began to take an interest and showed that presupposition was an allpervasive phenomenon far beyond this philosophers’ pet definite descriptions. And on the other hand, and this is our real concern, it is now only too obvious that the uniqueness condition is too restrictive to be applicable to the general case. An utterance of “The cat is on the mat” should not imply that there is only one cat and one mat in the whole world. The obvious move is to limit the uniqueness condition to some notion of utterance context.
In his early years, C. C. Uhlenbeck was particularly interested in the problem of the Indo-European homeland (1895, 1897). He rejected Herman Hirt’s theory (1892) that the words for ‘birch’, ‘willow’, ‘spruce’, ‘oak’, ‘beech’ and ‘eel’ point to Lithuania and its immediate surroundings and returned to Otto Schrader’s view (1883, 1890) that the original homeland must rather be sought in southern Russia and may have included some of the later Germanic and Iranian territories. It is clear that the Mediterranean region and the area around the North Sea can safely be excluded because the arrival of the Indo-Europeans was comparatively recent here, as it was in Iran and the Indian subcontinent. It is difficult to be more specific within the limits of central and eastern Europe and central Asia. Uhlenbeck was impressed by the lexical correspondences between Indo-European and Semitic which had been adduced in favor of an eastern homeland but pointed out that borrowings from Semitic may have reached the Indo-Europeans through an intermediary. He agrees that the Indo-European words for trees and animals point to a moderate climate but questions the possibility of a more specific localization as well as the concept of homeland itself.
La présente étude revisite la liste des langues bantoues du Gabon contenues dans la classification des langues bantoues de Guthrie (1967 - 1971), en y ajoutant une nouvelle langue, des nouveaux dialectes, et pour la première fois des sous dialectes. Prenant en compte les acquis des classifications antérieures des langues bantoues du Gabon, elle revient sur les propositions de codification de Maho (2003,2006 et 2007) visant à ajouter des nouvelles langues et de nouveaux dialectes dans la liste de Guthrie sans remettre en question le système de codification établi par ce dernier. Des nouvelles propositions sont formulées ici qui réanalysent ou réaménagent les modèles de codification avancés par cet auteur, tout en se portant en faux contre une sacralisation inavouée de la classification de Guthrie qui viserait à mettre ses propositions d’indexation des langues bantoues à l’abris de toute modification ou réaménagement. Enfin, la présente classification revient sur un certain nombre de dénominations et de problèmes orthographiques des noms de langues relevées dans les anciennes classifications, pour proposer des corrections qui tiennent comptent soit du bon sens, soit du point de vue des locuteurs ou des conventions de notation des langues bantoues arrêtées par les linguistes de l’Ecole de Tervuren.
Chinese is often taken as a prime example of an isolating language. Most relation marking takes the form of particles rather than affixes or inflections. Possibly relevant to the facts that are presented below, Chinese has been argued to not have grammaticalized the sort of pivot constructions normally associated with grammatical relations. That is, it has been argued to not have any particular alignment, as there are no grammatical relations, and the clause pattern is simply topic-comment (Chao 1968, Lü 1979, LaPolla 1993, 1995, 2009; LaPolla & Poa 2005, 2006). We will first talk more generally about structures found in Sino-Tibetan languages, and then focus on Modern Mandarin Chinese.
Compositionality
(2007)
Decomposing questions acts
(2006)