Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (7) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
- Deutsch (2)
- Kasussynkretismus (2)
- Frühneuenglisch (1)
- Hilfsverb (1)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (1)
- Marker <Linguistik> (1)
- Mittelenglisch (1)
- Morphem (1)
- Perfekt (1)
- Sprachwandel (1)
In terms of the direction of development, I referred to Johanna Nichols' work on head-marking vs. dependant marking. Nichols did not make reference to any languages in Tibeto-Burman, but all of the Tibeto-Burman languages that do not have verb agreement systems are solidly dependent-marking (i.e., they have marking on the nouns for case or pragmatic function); those languages with verb agreement systems, a type of head marking, also have many dependent-marking features (of the same types as the non-pronominalized languages). The question, then, is which is older, the dependent-marking type or the headmarking (actually mixed) type?
Word formation in Distributed Morphology (see Arad 2005, Marantz 2001, Embick 2008): 1. Language has atomic, non-decomposable, elements = roots. 2. Roots combine with the functional vocabulary and build larger elements. 3. Roots are category neutral. They are then categorized by combining with category defining functional heads.
In meinem Vortrag möchte ich Ihnen einige Überlegungen zu Fragen der vergleichenden Flexionsmorphologie vortragen und dabei wiederum speziell zur Kasusmarkierung an Substantiven. Ich werde mich dabei besonders auf das Polnische beziehen – eine Sprache, deren Kasusbildungen teils Charakteristika des fusionierenden oder flektierenden Typus zeigen, teils aber eher dem agglutinierenden Typ nahe kommen. Diese Mischung stellt, wie ich zeigen möchte, eine besondere Herausforderung für die morphologische Kasusanalyse dar. Ich werde dies im ersten Abschnitt meines Beitrags erläutern. Im zweiten Abschnitt greife ich einige bekannte Beobachtungen zu Kasussynkretismen auf, die für eine Analyse des polnischen Systems nützlich sind. Im dritten Abschnitt gebe ich für einen Ausschnitt des polnischen Deklinationssystems eine detaillierte Analyse.
This paper examines the development of periphrastic constructions involving auxiliary "have" and "be" with a past participle in the history of English, on the basis of parsed electronic corpora. It is argued that the two constructions represented distinct syntactic and semantic structures: while the one with have developed into a true perfect in the course of Middle English, the one with be remained a stative resultative throughout its history. In this way, it is explained why the be construction was rarely or never used in a number of contexts, including past counterfactuals, iteratives, duratives, certain kinds of infinitives and various other utterance types that cannot be characterized as perfects of result. When the construction with have became a true perfect, it was used in such contexts, regardless of the identity of the main verb, leading to the appearance of have with verbs like come which had previously only taken be. Crucially, however, have was not spreading at the expense of be, as the be perfect had never been used in such contexts, but rather at the expense of the old simple past. At least until the end of the Early Modern English period, the shift in the relative frequency of have and be perfects is to be explained in terms of the expansion of the former into new contexts, while the latter remained stable. A formal analysis is proposed, taking as its starting point a comparison with German which shows that the older English be perfect indeed behaves more like the German stative passive than its haben and sein perfects.
Unter “Kasussynkretismus” versteht man den Wegfall von morphologischen Unterscheidungen im Kasussystem einer Sprache. Hier will ich über den Synkretismus sprechen, der im Deutschen im Femininum stattgefunden hat. Im Gegensatz zum Maskulinum, aber ebenso wie im Neutrum, unterscheidet das Deutsche systematisch nicht zwischen der Nominativform und der Akkusativform.