Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
- 2005 (39) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (23)
- Article (8)
- Working Paper (4)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Book (1)
- Preprint (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (39)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (39)
Keywords
- Artikulation (13)
- Artikulatorische Phonetik (13)
- Phonetik (13)
- Artikulator (9)
- Akustische Phonetik (5)
- Deutsch (5)
- Auditive Phonetik (4)
- Experimentelle Phonetik (4)
- Konsonant (4)
- Kontrastive Phonetik (4)
Institute
- Extern (2)
Wer sich einmal in Deutschschweizer IRC-Chatkanälen herumgesehen hat, hat sofort bemerkt, dass neben der Standardsprache häufig Mundart verwendet wird. Eine Analyse der Varietätenverwendung bietet sich an. Es stellt sich die Frage: was bedeutet sprachliche Norm in einem Kommunikationsraum, in dem die Vorgabe, Deutsch zu schreiben, nur heißt nicht Französisch, Italienisch, Türkisch, Serbisch, Portugiesisch usw. zu schreiben, wo also die Standardsprache nur eine der akzeptierten Varietäten ist? Was bedeutet sprachliche Norm, wo Berndeutsch mit /l/-Vokalisierung neben Walliserdeutsch mit archaischen Volltonvokalen in Nebensilben vorkommt, wo für ein standardsprachliches [a:] ‹a, ah, aa, o, oh› oder ‹oo› stehen kann? Der Frage nach einer deskriptiven Norm wird hier nachgegangen, indem Möglichkeiten der Verschriftung einzelner Aspekte aufgezeigt werden und deren Nutzung in regionalen und überregionalen Chaträumen verglichen werden. Aus dem aktuellen Gebrauch wird dann versucht implizite Normen abzuleiten.
Trubetzkoy's recognition of a delimitative function of phonology, serving to signal boundaries between morphological units, is expressed in terms of alignment constraints in Optimality Theory, where the relevant constraints require specific morphological boundaries to coincide with phonological structure (Trubetzkoy 1936, 1939, McCarthy & Prince 1993). The approach pursued in the present article is to investigate the distribution of phonological boundary signals to gain insight into the criteria underlying morphological analysis. The evidence from English and Swedish suggests that necessary and sufficient conditions for word-internal morphological analysis concern the recognizability of head constituents, which include the rightmost members of compounds and head affixes. The claim is that the stability of word-internal boundary effects in historical perspective cannot in general be sufficiently explained in terms of memorization and imitation of phonological word form. Rather, these effects indicate a morphological parsing mechanism based on the recognition of word-internal head constituents. Head affixes can be shown to contrast systematically with modifying affixes with respect to syntactic function, semantic content, and prosodic properties. That is, head affixes, which cannot be omitted, often lack inherent meaning and have relatively unmarked boundaries, which can be obscured entirely under specific phonological conditions. By contrast, modifying affixes, which can be omitted, consistently have inherent meaning and have stronger boundaries, which resist prosodic fusion in all phonological contexts. While these correlations are hardly specific to English and Swedish it remains to be investigated to which extent they hold cross-linguistically. The observation that some of the constituents identified on the basis of prosodic evidence lack inherent meaning raises the issue of compositionality. I will argue that certain systematic aspects of word meaning cannot be captured with reference to the syntagmatic level, but require reference to the paradigmatic level instead. The assumption is then that there are two dimensions of morphological analysis: syntagmatic analysis, which centers on the criteria for decomposing words in terms of labelled constituents, and paradigmatic analysis, which centers on the criteria for establishing relations among (whole) words in the mental lexicon. While meaning is intrinsically connected with paradigmatic analysis (e.g. base relations, oppositeness) it is not essential to syntagmatic analysis.
This paper addresses remarks made by Flemming (2003) to the effect that his analysis of the interaction between retroflexion and vowel backness is superior to that of Hamann (2003b). While Hamann maintained that retroflex articulations are always back, Flemming adduces phonological as well as phonetic evidence to prove that retroflex consonants can be non-back and even front (i.e. palatalised). The present paper, however, shows that the phonetic evidence fails under closer scrutiny. A closer consideration of the phonological evidence shows, by making a principled distinction between articulatory and perceptual drives, that a reanalysis of Flemming’s data in terms of unviolated retroflex backness is not only possible but also simpler with respect to the number of language-specific stipulations.
The present study shows that though retroflex segments can be considered articulatorily marked, there are perceptual reasons why languages introduce this class into their phoneme inventory. This observation is illustrated with the diachronic developments of retroflexes in Norwegian (North- Germanic), Nyawaygi (Australian) and Minto-Nenana (Athapaskan). The developments in these three languages are modelled in a perceptually oriented phonological theory, since traditional articulatorily-based features cannot deal with such processes.
Dutch has a three-way contrast in labiodental sounds, which causes problems for native speakers of German in their acquisition of Dutch, since German contrasts only two labiodentals. The present study investigates the perception of the Dutch labiodental fricative system by German L2 learners of Dutch and shows that native Germans with no or little knowledge of the Dutch language categorize the Dutch labiodental voiced fricative and approximant as their native voiced fricative. Advanced learners, however, succeed in acquiring a category for the voiced fricative, illustrating that plasticity in the perception of a second language develops with the amount of exposure to the language.
Hittite ammuk 'me'
(2005)
In the Indo-European department of Leiden University, Alwin Kloekhorst has initiated a discussion on Hittite ammuk ‘me’. The central question is: where did the geminate come from? This has led me to reconsider the origin of the Indo-European personal pronouns against the background of my reconstruction of Indo-Uralic (2002: 221-225). For the historical data I may refer to Schmidt (1978).