Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (54) (remove)
Language
- English (31)
- German (19)
- French (2)
- Multiple languages (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (54)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (54)
Keywords
- Sprachtypologie (30)
- Linguistik (16)
- Kontrastive Linguistik (13)
- Sprachliche Universalien (12)
- Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft (10)
- Aufsatzsammlung (4)
- Deutsch (4)
- Syntax (4)
- Morphologie (3)
- Possessivität (3)
Eine ausführliche Analyse der Prinzipien der etikettierenden und der deskriptiven Benennung findet sich in Seiler 1975 a. [...] Wesentlich ist; daß der Term gegenüber der Paraphrase; die vermittels der Proposition, zu der er in Beziehung steht, formuliert werden kann (Lehrer = einer, der lehrt), eine Bedeutungsverengung erfährt, die in diesem Falle durch eine zusätzliche semantische Komponente 'professionell' oder 'habituell' o.ä. erfaßt werden kann. Der deskriptiven Benennung, auch charakterisierbar als "Benennen durch Aussagen", dienen diverse sprachliche Mittel oder Techniken wie Derivation, Komposition (mit der Subtechnik der Inkorporation), Absolutivbildung usw. Nicht alle Techniken kommen in jeder Sprache zur Anwendung und auch in den Sprachen, in denen sie zur Anwendung gelangen, ist diese in vielen Fällen auf bestimmte morpho-syntaktische Bereiche beschränkt. [...] Betrachten wir nun unter diesem Gesichtspunkt der Distribution deskriptiver Techniken die Verteilung von Komposition und Derivation im Deutschen. [...] Gegenstand der folgenden Überlegungen soll […] die verbale Wortbildung, und zwar im Vergleich zur nominalen, sein.
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.
Das Ziel dieser Arbeit besteht zunächst darin, in einem 1. Teil das Phänomen 'Zahlklassifikator' zu explizieren und an Beispielen – vornehmlich aus den Sprachen Südostasiens – zu erläutern. Im 2. Teil werden dann Sprachen Ozeaniens und Mayasprachen Mittelamerikas, die nicht als 'typische' Klassifikatorsprachen gelten, dargestellt und anhand der im 10 Teil entwickelten Begriffe, diskutiert. Den Ausgangspunkt der Überlegungen bildet die Arbeit von Greenberg (1972) über Zahlklassifikatoren, deren Thesen im 1. Teil dargestellt und kommentiert werden. Die theoretische Grundlage dieser Arbeit ist die Universalienkonzeption, wie sie dem Kölner Forschungsprojekt für Universalien und Typologie (UNITYF) zugrunde liegt. Der besondere Rahmen, in dem die Bearbeitung dieses Themas steht, ist die Dimension der 'Individuation', bei der es um Prozesse zur 'Erfassung von Gegenständen' geht. (Zu den theoretischen Grundlagen von UNITYF und dem Begriff der Dimension siehe Seiler (1977 (a) und (b).)
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.
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.
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.
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.