Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Possessivität (4) (remove)
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.
Inhärenz und Etablierung
(1981)
Die folgenden Überlegungen zum Problem der Inhärenz und Etablierung beziehen ihre wesentlichen Anregungen aus dem Aufsatz von H. Seiler "Zum Problem der sprachlichen Possessivität" (1972), wo eben dieses Problem eingebettet wird in den Rahmen von Inhärenz und Etablierung. […] Ziel der Untersuchung ist es, ausgehend von einer vorläufigen Definition der letztgenannten Begriffe […] und angelehnt an eine kasussemantische Methodik, Possessivität als ein sprachliches Phänomen zu beschreiben, das verstanden werden muß im Rahmen allgemeiner relationaler Erscheinungen: Inhärenz und Etablierung ist in meinem Verständnis immer Inhärenz und Etablierung semantischer Relationen, einem Lexem ist immer eine solche Relation (mehr oder weniger) inhärent, es wird stets zwischen Lexemen eine Relation etabliert. Damit ist auch eine Brücke zur Valenz, die man als Inhärenz im verbalen Bereich verstehen könnte, gegeben […]. Nach einer Klärung des Umfeldes wird die Inhärenz zunächst für das Deutsche und Türkische einer genaueren Untersuchung unterworfen, eine weitere Detailanalyse ist dem Nahuatl gewidmet. Untersuchungen zu weiteren Sprachen […] sollen das gewonnene Bild erweitern und modifizieren. Die Untersuchungen zur Etablierung können nur als allererste Ansätze gelten, wie die gesamte Arbeit lediglich den Anspruch stellt, den Bereich nicht etwa erschöpfend abzuhandeln, sondern nur die Richtung aufzuzeigen, in der mögliche Ergebnisse zu suchen sind.
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.
These proceedings, also online available as No. 46 in the ZAS Papers in Linguistics series under http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/index.html?publications_zaspil have resulted from the International Conference "Focus in African languages" held October 6-8, 2005 at the Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS) in Berlin. The conference was cooperatively organized by the latter, together with the Collaborative Research Center (Sonderforschungsforschungsbereich) 632, generously funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). It was the first conference bringing together colleagues working on this topic from all over the world in such scale.
Even though this volume contains only ten contributions out of the 35 papers presented at the conference, it displays the wide range of approaches, subjects and languages studied in the field of information structure in African languages. The collection thus reflects the synergetic atmosphere of the conference.
In the name of all organizers (Laura Downing, Ines Fiedler, Katharina Hartmann, Brigitte Reineke, Anne Schwarz, Sabine Zerbian, Malte Zimmermann) we would like to take this opportunity to thank the participant reviewers and student assistants for their contributions by which the conference became such a fruitful forum for inspiring and seminal studies in this field. Also special thanks for their effort in copy editing to our research assistants Lars Marstaller and Paul Starzmann.