Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (7)
- Preprint (7)
- Working Paper (6)
- Part of a Book (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (24)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (24)
Keywords
- Syntax (8)
- Deutsch (7)
- Optimalitätstheorie (7)
- Relativsatz (4)
- Kontrastive Linguistik (3)
- Linguistik (3)
- Satzanalyse (3)
- Semantik (3)
- Türkisch (3)
- Verb (3)
Institute
- Extern (24) (remove)
U radu se prikazuje i analizira leksikografski status brojevnih riječi u Rječniku hrvatskoga kajkavskoga književnog jezika. Prilaže se popis brojevnih riječi obrađenih u rječniku, utvrđuje se u kojoj su mjeri u rječničkome članku zastupljeni elementi gramatičkoga opisa i navode li se oni dosljedno. Analiziraju se elementi definicije brojevnih riječi i njezina koherentnost.
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.
In this paper I present five alternations of the verb system of Modern Greek, which are recurrently mapped on the syntactic frame NPi__NP. The actual claim is that only the participation in alternations and/or the allocation to an alternation variant can reliably determine the relation between a verb derivative and its base. In the second part, the conceptual structures and semantic/situational fields of a large number of “-ízo” derivatives appearing inside alternation classes are presented. The restricted character of the conceptual and situational preferences inside alternations classes suggests the dominant character of the alternations component.