Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (1214)
- Part of a Book (784)
- Conference Proceeding (583)
- Working Paper (254)
- Review (181)
- Preprint (122)
- Book (108)
- Part of Periodical (64)
- Report (58)
- Doctoral Thesis (23)
Language
- English (1815)
- German (1061)
- Croatian (298)
- Portuguese (120)
- Turkish (43)
- Multiple languages (25)
- French (21)
- mis (16)
- Spanish (7)
- Polish (4)
Keywords
- Deutsch (437)
- Syntax (152)
- Linguistik (130)
- Englisch (123)
- Semantik (112)
- Spracherwerb (97)
- Phonologie (86)
- Rezension (77)
- Kroatisch (68)
- Fremdsprachenlernen (67)
Institute
- Extern (438)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) Mannheim (113)
- Neuere Philologien (43)
- Sprachwissenschaften (43)
- Universitätsbibliothek (5)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (3)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Medizin (2)
- Präsidium (2)
- SFB 268 (2)
Sprechen heißt, mit Sachverhalten zu operieren. Die Forschung an der Dimension PARTIZIPATION hat es unternommen, zu zeigen, was es heißt, Sachverhalte sprachlich zu erfassen, und welche Techniken unter dieser allgemeinen Funktion zu finden sind und zusammenspielen (cf. Seiler/Premper (eds.) 1991). Wer spricht, macht aber gewöhnlich mehr: Sachverhalte werden nicht nur erfaßt, sondern gleichzeitig auch in den Kontext einer kommunikativen Absicht gestellt; sie werden behauptet, vermutet, bezweifelt, in Frage gestellt, negiert, gefordert, herbeigewünscht und anderes mehr. Kommunikative Absichten sind ebenfalls konstitutiv fürs Sprechen; durch sie werden Sprechereignisse erst zu Sprechakten. Sprechsituationen sind aber auch nicht nur durch kommunikative Absichten gekennzeichnet, sondern sie finden natürlich in Zeit und Raum statt. Folglich bestehen zwischen Sprecher und besprochenen Sachverhalten nicht nur Einstellungs-, sondern auch zeitliche Beziehungen. Dieses Hineinstellen in einen kommunikativen Kontext wird von uns (von UNITYP) SITUIERUNG genannt, und die Tatsache, daß sich dieser Komplex von Operationen sprachlicher Mittel bedient, macht Situierung zu einer sprachlichen Dimension. Die vorliegende Arbeit stellt sich die Aufgabe, die beiden Dimensionen Partizipation und Situierung in ihrem Verhältnis zueinander zu beleuchten, und zwar schwerpunktmäßig aus theoretischer und wissenschaftshistorischer Sicht. Als begrifflich-terminologischer Anknüpfungspunkt soll dabei der Ausdruck Proposition dienen. Zunächst werden einige Aspekte dieses Begriffes in der philosophischen Logik aufgeführt (Kap. 1). Dann wird die Diskussion, teilweise in Analogie zum ersten Kapitel, im Bereich der Linguistik fortgeführt, wobei unter anderem Argumente aus den Bereichen Sprechakttheorie (2.2.), Transformationstheorie (2.3.), Substitutionstests (2.4.) und Generative Semantik (2.5.) ins Spiel kommen.
Oppositeness, i.e. the relation between opposites or contraries or contradictories, has a fundamental role in human cognition. In the various domains of intellectual and psychological activity we find ordering schemas that are based, in one way or another, on the cognitive figure of oppositeness. It is therefore not surprising that the figure and its corresponding ordering schemas show their reflexes in the languages of the world. [...] We shall be dealing with oppositeness in the sense that a linguistically untrained native speaker, when asked what would be the opposite of 'long' can come up with some such answer as 'short', and likewise intuitively grasp the relation between 'man' and 'woman', 'corne' and 'go', 'up' and 'down', etc. Thinking that much of the vocabulary of a language is organized in such opposite pairs we must recognize that this is an important faculty, and we are curious to know how this is done, what are the underlying conceptual-cognitive structures and processes, and how they are encoded in the languages of the world. We shall leave out of consideration such oppositions as singular vs. plural. present vs. past, voiced vs. unvoiced, oppositions that the linguist states by means of a metalanguage which is itself derived from a concept of oppositeness as manifested by the examples which I gave earlier. Our approach will connect with earlier versions of the UNITYP framework. However, as a novel feature, and, hopefully, as an improvement, we shall apply some sort of a division of labor. We shall first try to reconstruct the conceptual-cognitive content of oppositeness and to keep it separate from the discussion of its reflexes in the individual languages. We shall find that a dimensional ordering of content in PARAMETERS and a continuum of TECHNIQUES is possible already on the conceptual-cognitive level. In order to keep it distinct from the level of linguistic encoding we shall use a separate terminology, graphically marked by capital 1etters.
In den folgenden Ausführungen wird es darum gehen, in einer den Erörterungen von Foley/van Valin (1984:208ff.) verwandten Weise Evidenz für eine bestimmte Reihenfolge der unter T/A/M zusammengefaßten Bereiche (Temporalität, Aspektualität und Modalität) zu erbringen. Wir teilen die Auffassung der beiden Autoren, daß die drei Bereiche als Operatoren über verschiedene Satz-Layer verstanden werden können, wobei die Foley/van Valinsche Konzeption besagt, daß Aspektualität mit dem Satznukleus (dem Prädikat), Modalität mit dem Core (dem Prädikat und den fundamentalen Partizipanten ACTOR und UNDERGOER) und schließlich Temporalität mit der Peripherie des Satzes (Prädikat, Core und "Umstandsangaben") interagiert. (Man vergleichedazu das Schema bei Foley/van Valin 1984:224). Im Zentrum unseres Interesses steht nun, die von den beiden Autoren postulierte Reihenfolge durch Beobachtungen zur Kasusmarkierung zu untermauern. Diese Sehweise unterscheidet sich von der der beiden amerikanischen Linguisten insofern, als sie vornehmlich die Sequenz der Morpheme im Bezug zum Verbstamm heranziehen, um eine Reihenfolge Stamm-A-M-T zu substantiieren. Bybee (1985) verfährt ähnlich, kommt aber aufgrund anderer Überlegungen und eines größeren SprachsampIes zu anderen Ergebnissen. Somit sind wir bemüht, mithilfe einer an einer Technik der PARTIZIPATION ausgerichteten Betrachtungsweise, der der Konzentration auf Phänomene der KASUSMARKIERUNG, zusätzliche Argumente für eine A-M-T-Sequenz zu sammeln.
Why should we engage in language universals research and language typology? What do we want to explain? It is a fact that, although languages differ significantly and considerably. indeed, no one would deny, that they have something in common; how else could they be labelled 'language'? - There is obviously unity among them, no matter how vaguely felt and for what reasons: Scientific, practical, moral, etc. Neither diversity per se nor unity per se is what we want to explain. There is no reason whatsoever to consider either one of them as primary, and the other as derived. What we do want to explain is "equivalence in difference" – cf. our motto – which manifests itself, among others, in the translatability from one language to another, the learnability of any language, language change – which all presuppose that speakers intuitively find their way from diversity to unity. This is a highly salient property which deserves to be brought into our consciousness. Generally then, our basic goal is to explain the way in which language-specific facts are connected with a unitarian concept of language – "die Sprache" – "le langage".
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.
Es ist das Ziel dieser Arbeit, die Partizipantenmarkierung im Hausa darzustellen. Das Interesse gilt primär der Beschreibung von Sprachdaten und nicht einer theoretischen Auseinandersetzung. Indes ist das eine ohne das andere nicht denkbar. Daher werden im vorliegenden Kapitel der theoretische Hintergrund, d. h. die Begriffe und Konzepte erläutert, die sich zur adäquaten Beschreibung der Daten als hilfreich erwiesen.
The human mind may produce prototypization within virtually any realm of cognition and behavior. A "comparative prototype-typology" might prove to be an interesting field of study – perhaps a new subfield of semiotics. This, however, would presuppose a clear view on the samenesses and differences of prototypization in these various fields. It seems realistic for the time being that the linguist first confine himself to describing prototypization within the realm of language proper. The literature on prototypes has steadily grown in the past ten years or so. I confine myself to mentioning the volume on Noun Classes and Categorization, edited by C. Craig (1986), which contains a wealth of factual information on the subject, along with some theoretical vistas. By and large, however, linguistic prototype research is still basically in a taxonomic stage - which, of course, represents the precondition for moving beyond. The procedure is largely per ostensionem, and by accumulating examples of prototypes. We still lack a comprehensive prototype theory. The following pages are intended, not to provide such, a theory, but to do the first steps in this direction. Section 2 will feature some elements of a functional theory of prototypes. They have been developed by this author within the frame of the UNITYP model of research on language universals and typology. Section 3 will bring a discussion of prototypization with regard to selected phenomena of a wide range of levels of analysis: Phonology, morphosyntax, speech acts, and the lexicon. Prototypization will finally be studied within one of the universal dimensions, that of APPREHENSION - the linguistic representation of the concepts of objects – as proposed by Seiler (1986).
This is a survey of the development of the model of PARTICIPATION (P'ATION) with reference to the postulated sequence of the techniques on the dimension of P'ATION. Along with a brief explanation of the techniques this article contains a discussion of the major claims with regard to the sequence of the techniques and the possibilities of subjecting the claims to empirical verification.