Linguistik-Klassifikation: Sprachtypologie / Language typology
51 search hits
-
Causes and effects of Substratum, Superstratum and Adstratum influence, with reference to Tibeto-Burman languages
(2009)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- Language contact has become a major focus of inquiry in historical and typological linguistics in the last twenty years, spurred in a large part by the publication of Thomason & Kaufman (1988), which tried to make sense of a large amount of language contact data. They argued that there was a direct relationship between the degree or intensity of language contact and the amount and type of influence the contact would have on one or more of the languages involved. Essentially, the greater the degree of bilingualism, the greater the degree of contact influence (see also Thomason 2001); if the contact and bilingualism was minimal, then there might just be a few loanwords adapted to the borrowing language's phonology and grammatical system, but if the contact and bilingualism was of a greater degree there would be influence in the grammar and phonology of the affected language. As more linguists came to take language contact more seriously, they came to realize how common language contact phenomena are.
-
Panorama da lexicografia alemã
(2008)
-
Félix Bugueño Miranda
-
Zur kontrastiven Erforschung des Tschetschenischen und des Deutschen
(2008)
-
Magomed S. Dagirov
- Die tschetschenische und die deutsche Sprache gehören bekanntlich zu unterschiedlichen Sprachfamilien. Die traditionelle morphologische Klassifikation zählt das Tschetschenische zu den agglutinierenden Sprachen. Dennoch zeigt das Tschetschenische viele gemeinsame Züge mit den Sprachen anderer genealogischer Strukturen, so zum Beispiel – unserer These nach – mit dem Deutschen auf dem Gebiet der Phonetik. Hinsichtlich der Morphologie und der Syntax gib es Ähnlichkeiten mit den slawischen Sprachen, vornehmlich dem Russischen. Die tschetschenischen Sprachforscher betonen aber, dass ihre Sprache unter den anderen kaukasischen, agglutinierenden Sprachen einen besonderen Platz einnimmt, weil man in ihr viele Merkmale der Flektierbarkeit beobachten kann, besonders bei der Deklination von Gattungsnamen, Adjektiven und Partizipien.
-
Transitivity and transitivity alternations in Rawang and Qiang
(2008)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- This paper is more about presenting phenomena and questions related to the concept of transitivity in Tibeto-Burman languages that I hope will stimulate discussion, rather than presenting strong conclusions. Sections 2 and 3 present alternative analyses of transitivity and questions about transitivity in two Tibeto-Burman languages I have worked on. In Section 4 I discuss some general issues about transitivity.
-
Japanese aru, iru, oru 'to be' : [oru ist bin aru]
(2007)
-
Frederik H. H. Kortlandt
- Among the Japanese expressions for 'to be', the verbs aru (unmarked), iru (animate subject) and oru (humble variant of iru) are of special interest (cf. Martin 1975: 194f. for a descriptive account). We may look for cognates of these verbs in the (other) Altaic languages.
-
Nivkh as a Uralo-Siberian language
(2007)
-
Frederik H. H. Kortlandt
- In his magnificent book on the language relations across Bering Strait (1998), Michael Fortescue does not consider Nivkh (Gilyak) to be a Uralo-Siberian language. Elsewhere I have argued that the Indo-European verbal system can be understood in terms of its Indo-Uralic origins (2001). All of these languages belong to Joseph Greenberg’s Eurasiatic macro-family (2000). In the following I intend to reconsider the grammatical evidence for including Nivkh into the Uralo-Siberian language family. The Indo-Uralic evidence is of particular importance because it guarantees a time depth which cannot otherwise be attained.
-
Towards a Typological Classification of Modern Greek
(2007)
-
Chariton Charitonidis
- In the area of the Modern Greek verb, phenomena which consistently appear are headmarking, many potential slots before and/or after the verb root, noun and adverb incorporation, addition of adverbial elements by means of affixes, a large inventory of bound morphemes, verbal words as minimal sentences, etc. These features relate Modern Greek to polysynthesis. The main bulk of this paper is dedicated to the comparison of affixal and incorporation patterns between Modern Greek and the polysynthetic languages Abkhaz, Cayuga, Chukchi, Mohawk, and Nahuatl. Ultimately, a typological outlook for Modern Greek is proposed.
-
Sino-Tibetan languages
(2006)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- The Sino-Tibetan (ST) language family includes the Sinitic languages (what for political reasons are known as Chinese ‘dialects’) and the 200 to 300 Tibeto-Burman (TB) languages. Geographically it stretches from Northeast India, Burma, Bangladesh, and northern Thailand in the southeast, throughout the Tibetan plateau to the north, across most of China and up to the Korean border in the northeast, and down to Taiwan and Hainan Island in the southeast. The family has come to be the way it is because of multiple migrations, often into areas where other languages were spoken (LaPolla, 2001).
-
Indo-European E-, A-, O- in Slavic
(2005)
-
Frederik H. H. Kortlandt
-
Qiang
(2003)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
