Institutes
Refine
Year of publication
- 1994 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Book (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Computerlinguistik (2)
- Japanisch (2)
- Dialog (1)
- Morphosyntax (1)
- Stativ <Grammatik> (1)
- Tagalog (1)
Institute
- Extern (3)
In the last two decades Philippine languages, and of these especially Tagalog, have acquired a prominent place in linguistic theory. A central role in this discussion was played by two papers written by Schachter (1976 and 1977), who was inspired by Keenan's artcle on the subject from 1976. The most recent contributions on this topic have been from de Wolff (1988) and Shibatani (1988), both of which were published in a collection of essays, edited by Shibatani, with the title Passive and Voice. These works, and several works in-between, deal with the focus system specific to Philippine languages. The main discussion centers around the fact that Philippine languages contain a basic set of 5 to 7 affix focus forms. Their exact number varies not only in the secondary literature, but in the primary sources, i.e. Tagalog grammars, as well, where considerable differences in the number of affix focus forms can be found. All of these works, however, do agree on one point: the Philippine focus system basica1ly consists of agent, patient (=goal or object), benefactive, locative, and instrumental affix forms. Schachter/Otanes (1972) list a number of further forms, and in Drossard (1983 and 1984) we tried to show (in an attempt similar to those of Sapir 1917 and Klimov 1977) that the main criterion for a systematization of the Philippine focus system consists in the difference between the active and stative domains, an attempt which in our opinion was largely misunderstood (cf. the brief remarks in Shibatani (1988) and de Wolff (1988). The present paper is thus, on the one hand, an attempt to repeat and clarify our earlier position, and on the other, a further step towards such a systematization. A first step in this direction was an article on resultativity in Tagalog from 1991. In the present paper this approach will be extended to reciprocity. In the process we will show that it is valid to make a distinction between an active (=controlled action) vs. a stative (=limited controlled action) domain. First, however, we will take a brief look at what makes up the active and stative voice systems.
Some requirements for a VERBMOBIL system capable of processing Japanese dialogue input have been explored. Based on a pilot study in the VERBMOBIL domain, dialogues between 2 participants and a professional Japanese interpreter have been analyzed with respect to a very typical and frequent feature: zero pronouns. Zero pronouns in Japanese texts or dialogues as well as overt pronouns in English texts or dialogues are an important element of discourse coherence. As to translation, this difference in the use of pronouns is a case of translation mismatch: information not explicitly expressed in the source language is needed in the target language. (Verb argument positions, normally obligatory in English, are rather frequently omitted in Japanese. Furthermore, verbs in Japanese are not marked with respect to features necessary for pronoun selection in English.)
Das Problem des Transfers in der maschinellen Übersetzung von Japanisch nach Englisch ist fehlende Information über Numerus und Definitheit im Japanischen, die für die Wahl der englischen Artikel und die Nomenmarkierung gebraucht wird. Obwohl dieses Problem signifikant ist, beschäftigt sich die Forschungsliteratur kaum damit. [...] Wir bsaieren unsere Untersuchungen auf experimentell erhobenen Daten aus einem Experiment über deutsch-japanische gedolmetschte Terminaushandlungsdialoge [...]. Auf diese Weise können Phänomene bestimmt werden, die für die Domäne von VERBMOBIL relevant sind. Wir sehen unser Vorgehen in Übereinstimmung mit dem 'Sublanguage'-Ansatz [...].