Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (60)
- Working Paper (31)
- Article (9)
- Book (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Preprint (1)
- Report (1)
Language
- English (104) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (104)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (104)
Keywords
- Sprachtypologie (30)
- Kontrastive Linguistik (21)
- Linguistik (15)
- Syntax (15)
- Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft (14)
- Phonologie (11)
- Semantik (11)
- Verb (10)
- Adjunkt <Linguistik> (9)
- Prosodie (9)
- Prädikat (9)
- Spracherwerb (9)
- Deutsch (8)
- Englisch (8)
- Morphologie <Linguistik> (8)
- Adverb (6)
- Sprachliche Universalien (6)
- Kontrastive Grammatik (5)
- Aufsatzsammlung (4)
- Generative Grammatik (4)
- Kontrastive Phonologie (4)
- Modifikation <Linguistik> (4)
- Morphologie (4)
- Qiang-Sprache (4)
- Russisch (4)
- Sinotibetische Sprachen (4)
- Valenz <Linguistik> (4)
- Adverbiale (3)
- Argument <Linguistik> (3)
- Aspekt <Linguistik> (3)
- Drung (3)
- Intonation <Linguistik> (3)
- Kontrastive Syntax (3)
- Kopula (3)
- Nungisch (3)
- Polnisch (3)
- Possessivität (3)
- Possessivkonstruktion (3)
- Thema-Rhema-Gliederung (3)
- Tibetobirmanische Sprachen (3)
- Wortakzent (3)
- Affrikata (2)
- Bantusprachen (2)
- Chinesisch (2)
- Ergativ (2)
- Generative Transformationsgrammatik (2)
- Genitiv (2)
- Grammatiktheorie (2)
- Historische Sprachwissenschaft (2)
- Instrumental (2)
- Japanisch (2)
- Klitisierung (2)
- Kongress (2)
- Konsonant (2)
- Kontrastive Phonetik (2)
- Modifikator (2)
- Negation (2)
- Nominalphrase (2)
- Optimalitätstheorie (2)
- Slawische Sprachen (2)
- Topikalisierung (2)
- Transitivität (2)
- Typologie (2)
- Verschlusslaut (2)
- Wortstellung (2)
- Adamaua-Ost-Sprachen (1)
- Aerodynamik (1)
- Afrikanische Sprachen (1)
- Akustische Spektrographie (1)
- Arabisch (1)
- Artikulation (1)
- Aufforderungssatz (1)
- Austronesische Sprachen (1)
- Berbersprachen (1)
- Bezug / Linguistik (1)
- Cahuilla-Sprache (1)
- Deskriptivität (1)
- Determination <Linguistik> (1)
- Empirische Linguistik (1)
- Epenthese (1)
- Ergebnis (1)
- Ergänzung <Linguistik> (1)
- Evidentialität (1)
- Experimentelle Phonetik (1)
- Extraposition (1)
- Finnisch (1)
- Flexion (1)
- Frage (1)
- Französisch (1)
- Funktionale Kategorie (1)
- Funktionalismus <Linguistik> (1)
- Generische Aussage (1)
- Generizität (1)
- Gold (1)
- Grammatische Kategorie (1)
- Historische Phonologie (1)
- Informationsstruktur (1)
- Kasus (1)
- Khoisan (1)
- Konstruktionsgrammatik (1)
- Kontext (1)
- Koreanisch (1)
- Kroatisch (1)
- Kuanua (1)
- KwaNdebele (1)
- Körperteil (1)
- Lautwandel (1)
- Leipzig <2001> (1)
- Lexikologie (1)
- Litauisch (1)
- Lokativ (1)
- Malagassi-Sprache (1)
- Markiertheit (1)
- Methodologie (1)
- Montague-Grammatik (1)
- More <Linguistik> (1)
- Neugriechisch (1)
- Neurolinguistik (1)
- Niwchisch (1)
- Nominalisierung (1)
- Numerus (1)
- Objekt (1)
- Ortsadverb (1)
- Oslo <1999> (1)
- Paiwan (1)
- Partizip Perfekt (1)
- Partizipation (1)
- Persisch (1)
- Phrasenmarker (1)
- Phrasenstruktur (1)
- Pronomen (1)
- Prototyp <Linguistik> (1)
- Prädikation (1)
- Rekonstruktion (1)
- Samoanisch (1)
- Satzakzent (1)
- Satztyp (1)
- Schwedisch (1)
- Silbe (1)
- Silbentrennung (1)
- Spanisch (1)
- Spezifität (1)
- Sprachtheorie (1)
- Stimmhaftigkeit (1)
- Stimmlosigkeit (1)
- Strukturelle Semantik (1)
- Tagalog (1)
- Taiwan-Austronesisch (1)
- Thematische Relation (1)
- Universalgrammatik (1)
- Velar (1)
- Verbalphrase (1)
- Wortfeld (1)
- Zischlaut (1)
Institute
- Extern (1)
In an earlier paper, I proposed a system for evaluating the relative descriptivity of lexical items in a consistent manner in terms of the interrelations of three metrics. The first of these, including five possible degrees of descriptivity, is based on the premise that the sum of the meaningful parts of a given form is or is not equal to the meaning of the whole. The second, also composed of five degrees, is based on paraphrase-term relations in which the logical quantifiers: all, some and no, are applied to the terms of the paraphrase in one test and to the meaningful parts of the term (linguistic form) in the reversibility test. Both tests are applied in the form of logical propositions. The third metric, with three degrees, deals with the relative explicitness of the meaningful parts of a given form: explicit, implicit or neither. […] This system was then tested in a pilot study involving the fairly limited and semantically homogeneous lexical domain of body-part terms in a specific language, Finnish. The purpose of the present paper is to subject comparable data from other languages to the same kind of analysis and compare the results in order to ascertain whether the generalizations arrived at with the Finnish data also hold for the other languages or, more specifically, which of these generalizations are more or less universal and which language or language-type specific? The additional languages to be examined here are: French, German, Ewe, Maasai and Swahili.
The basic idea I want to develop and to substantiate in this paper consists in replacing – where necessary – the traditional concept of linguistic category or linguistic relation understood as 'things', as reified hypostases, by the more dynamic concept of dimension. A dimension of language structure is not coterminous with one single category or relation but, instead, accommodates several of them. It corresponds to certain well circumscribed purposive functions of linguistic activity as well as to certain definite principles and techniques for satisfying these functions. The true universals of language are represented by these dimensions, principles, and techniques which constitute the true basis for non-historical inter-language comparison. The categories and relations used in grammar are condensations – hypostases as it were – of such dimensions, principles, and techniques. Elsewhere I have outlined the theory which I want to test here in a case study.
These notes grew out of my preoccupation with writing a grammar of a particular language, Cahuilla, which is spoken in Southern California and belongs to the Uto-Aztecan family. [...] The Introduction to the Grammar as a whole – of which two sections are reproduced here in a modified version – tries to integrate the synoptic views of the different chapters into a series of comprehensive statements. The statements cluster around two topics: 1. A presentation of Cahuilla as a type of language. 2. Remarks on writing a grammar.
In my paper "Thesen zum Universalienprojekt" (1976) I mention two complementary procedures for discovering language universals: 1. The investigation of the dimensions and principles whose existence is necessitated by the communicative function of language; 2. The development of a formal language in which all syntactic rules are explicitly formulated and in which all syntactic categories are defined by their relation to a minimally necessary number of syntactic categories. Since the first procedure is treated in many of the other papers of this volume, I wish to discuss the role of formal methods in the research of language universals. As an example I want to take the dimensions of determination and show how expressions denoting concepts are modified and turned into reference identifying expressions. There is a general end a specific motivation for the introduction of formal methods into linguistics. The general motivation is to make statements in linguistics as exact and verifiable as they are in the natural sciences. The specific motivation is to make the grammars of various languages comparable by describing them with the same form of rules. The form has to be flexible enough to describe the phenomena of any possible natural language. All natural languages have in common that they may potentially express any meaning. The flexibility of the form of grammatical rules may therefore be attained, if syntactic rules are not isolated from the semantic function they express and syntactic classes are not defined merely by the relative position of their elements in the sentence, but also by the communicative function their elements fulfill in their combination with elements of other classes.
Montague (1974) has shown that this flexibility may be attained by using the language of algebra combined with categorial grammar. Algebraic systems have been developed by mathematicians to model any systems whose operations are definable. Montague does not merely use the tools of mathematics for describing the features of language, but regards syntax, semantics and pragmatics as branches of mathematics. One of the advantages of this approach is that we may apply the laws developed by mathematicians to the systems constructed by linguists for the description and explanation of natural language.
In this study I want to show, above all, that the linguistic expression of POSSESSION is not a given but represents a problem to be solved by the human mind. We must recognize from the outset that linguistic POSSESSION presupposes conceptual or notional POSSESSION, and I shall say more about the latter in Chapter 3. Certain varieties of linguistic structures in the particular languages are united by the fact that they serve the common purpose of expressing notional POS SESSION. But this cannot be their sole common denominator. How would we otherwise be able to recognize, to understand, to learn and to translate a particular linguistic structure as representing POSSESSION? There must be a properly linguistic common denominator, an invariant, that makes this possible. The invariant must be present both within a particular language and in cross-language comparison. What is the nature of such an invariant? As I intend to show, it consists in operational programs and functional principles corresponding to the purpose of expressing notional POSSESSION. The structures of possessivity which we find in the languages of the world represent the traces of these operations, and from the traces it becomes possible to reconstruct stepwise the operations and functions.
Possessive constructions are grammatical constructions which contain two nominals and express that the referent of one of these nominals belongs to the other. The kind of relationship denoted by possessive constructions is not only that of ownership (1), as the term "possessive" might suggest, but also that of kinship (2), bodypart relationship (3), part/whole relationship (4) and similar relationships [...]. The following investigation will start with possessive constructions on phrase level, i.e. possessive phrases, and then deal with possessive constructions on clause level.
At the end of last year, I designed an inquiry about the present state of linguistic typology in the form of a questionnaire. It was an attempt to cover the whole field by formulating the questions which seemed most relevant to it. This questionnaire is reproduced, without modifications, following this preface. In the first days of this year, it was sent to 33 linguists who I know are working in the field. The purpose was to form, on the basis of responses received, a picture of convergences and divergences among trends of present-day linguistic typology. The idea was also to get an objective basis for my report on "The present state of linguistic typology", to be delivered at the XIII. International Congress of Linguistics at Tokyo, 1982.
The approach outlined in the present paper is based on observations made with African languages. Although the 1000-odd African languages display a remarkable extent of structural variation, there are certain structures that do not seem to occur in Africa. Thus, to our knowledge, an African language having anything that could be called an ergative case or a numeral classifier system has not been discovered so far. It may turn out that our approach can, in a modified form, be made applicable to languages outside Africa. This , however, is a possibility that has not been considered here. The present approach is based essentially on diachronic findings in that it uses observations on language evolution in order to account for structural differences between languages. Thus, it has double potential: apart from describing and explaining typological diversity it can also be material to reconstructing language history.
The basic question is whether POSSESSOR and POSSESSUM are on the same level as the roles of VALENCE, two additional roles as it were. My research on POSSESSION has shown (Seiler 1981:7 ff.) that this is not the case, that there is a difference in principle between POSSESSION and VALENCE. However, there are multiple interactions between the two domains, and these interactions shall constitute the object of the following inquiry. It is hoped that this will contribute to a better understanding both of POSSESSION and of VALENCE.
Ergativity in Samoan
(1985)
Most typological and language specific studies on so- called ergative languages are concerned with case marking patterns, particularly split ergativity, with the organization of syntactic relations as defined by syntactic operations such as coreferential deletion across coordinate conjunctions, Equi-NP-deletion and relativization , and with the notion of subject, but usually neglect the notion of valency, though the inherent relational properties of the verb , i. e. valency, play a fundamental role in the syntactic organization of sentences in ergative as well as in other languages . The following investigation of ergativity in Samoan aims to integrate the notion of valency into the description of semantic and syntactic relations and to outline the characteristic features of Samoan verbal clauses as far as they seem to be relevant to recent and still ongoing discussions on linguistic typology and syntactic theory. The main points of the definition of valency […] are: Valency is the property of the verb which determines the obligatory and optional number of its participants, their morphosyntactic form, their semantic class membership (e.g. ± animate, ± human) , and their semantic role (e.g. agent , patient , recipient). All semantic properties and morphosyntactic properties of participants not inherently given by the verb and therefore not predictable from the verb, are not a matter of valency. Valency is not a homogenous property of the verb, but consists of several exponents which show varying degress of relevance in different languages or different verb classes within a single language.