Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2001 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Report (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Lexikologie (1)
- Sprachtypologie (1)
Cross-linguistically, numerals differ from other linguistic expressions in various aspects of their grammatical behavior and their acquisition. What is so special about them? I will show that a closer look at the status of numbers and numerals not only gives an answer to this question, but can also shed some light onto the syntax-semantics interface. Taking into account philosophical approaches from the foundations of mathematics, I will set forth a definition of number as a function that can be fulfilled by certain sequences. This will lead us (i) to dispense with abstract entities “numbers“ and (ii) to regard numeral sequences as sets that can function as numbers. I will show that this OCCAMiam view captures the peculiar features of numeral sequences as a reflex of their “number function”. On the other hand, the integration of number words into complex syntactic structures leads to a morpho-syntactic behavior of cardinals, ordinals and numerals in “#”-constructions that comes close to that of different word classes, depending on parallels in their semantic-conceptual structure.
It is often assumed that the goal of typology is to define the notion ‘possible human language’. This view, which I call the Universalist Typology view is shared, for example, by virtually all contributors to Bynon & Shibatani’s 1995 volume Approaches to Language Typology, and by Moravscik in her review of this volume in Linguistic Typology 1 (p.105). In the following I claim that this assumption is fundamentally mistaken. To clarify the theoretical status of what is meant by ‘possible human language’, I argue here for a distinction between typological theory (theoretical typology) and grammatical theory (theoretical syntax and theoretical morphology) as distinct subdisciplines of linguistics.