Linguistik-Klassifikation: Morphologie / Morphology
35 search hits
-
Nominalization – lexical and syntactic aspects
(2009)
-
Manfred Bierwisch
- The main tenet of the present paper is the thesis that nominalization – like other cases of derivational morphology – is an essentially lexical phenomenon with well defined syntactic (and semantic) conditions and consequences. More specifically, it will be argued that the relation between a verb and the noun derived from it is subject to both systematic and idiosyncratic conditions with respect to lexical as well as syntactic aspects.
-
Event nominalization : proposals and problems
(1989)
-
Manfred Bierwisch
-
Syntactic features in morphology : general problems of so-called pronominal inflection in german
(1967)
-
Manfred Bierwisch
- Morphological analysis of inflectional categories has been for a long time a favored field of classical structuralism. American scholars, in this respect, concentrated on the representation of inflected forms in terms of concatenated morphemes.
-
Tonal focus reflections in Buli and some Gur relatives
(2009)
-
Anne Schwarz
- Buli is an Oti-Volta tone language spoken in Northern Ghana. This paper outlines the basic features of its tonal system and explores whether and in which way pitch respectively phonemic tone is approached as a means to indicate the pragmatic category of focus. Pursued are cases with focus-related surface tone changes as well as cases where pitch could help to disambiguate between broad and narrow foci. It is argued that focus is not consistently encoded by pitch or tone. Parallel findings for the closely related languages Kopen o (phonetic symbol)nni and Dagbani suggest that the apparent lack of significant prosodic focus signals in Buli might pertain to a larger group of tonal languages of the Gur family.
-
Zur morphologischen Defektivität des Pronomens wer
(1996)
-
Karin Pittner
- Das Paradigma des Relativ- und Interrogativpronomens wer ist in verschiedener Hinsicht defektiv. Es existieren keine Pluralformen und lediglich zwei Genera im Singular, nämlich die Formen von wer und von was. Hinsichtlich der Dativform von was besteht keine Einigkeit. In dem folgenden Paradigma sind daher alle in verschiedenen Grammatiken vertretenen Auffassungen angegeben.
-
Ro[u:]ting the interpretation of words
(2009)
-
Artemis Alexiadou
- 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.
-
On the history of the genitive plural in Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and Indo-European
(1978)
-
Frederik H. H. Kortlandt
- A correct interpretation of the genitive plural forms in Slavic and related languages requires a detailed chronological analysis of the material. At every stage of development we have to reckon with both phonetically regular and analogical forms. Analogy operates quite often along the same lines in different periods. Explaining an analogic change amounts to indicating a model, a motivation, and a stage of development for its effectuation. If one of these cannot be indicated, we must look for a phonetic explanation.
-
The Germanic first class of weak verbs
(2009)
-
Frederik H. H. Kortlandt
-
The Germanic weak preterit
(2007)
-
Frederik H. H. Kortlandt
- The main difficulty with the Germanic weak preterit is that one cannot endeavor an explanation of its origin without taking into account almost every aspect of the historical phonology and morphology of the Germanic languages. In the following I intend to show how a number of problems receive a natural explanation in a unified treatment on the basis of earlier studies. The theory presented here is not revolutionary, but aims at integrating earlier findings into a coherent whole. There is no reason to give a detailed account of the scholarly literature, which is easily accessible (cf. Tops 1974, Bammesberger 1986).
-
On the meaning of the Japanese passive
(2003)
-
Frederik H. H. Kortlandt
- In her discussion of the Japanese adversative passive, Anna Wierzbicka writes (1988: 260): “The problem is extremely interesting and important both for intrinsic reasons and because of its wider methodological implications. It can be formulated like this: if one form can be used in a number of different ways, are we entitled to postulate for it a number of different meanings or should we rather search for one semantic common denominator (regarded as the MEANING of the form in question) and attribute the variety of uses to the interaction between this meaning and the linguistic or extralinguistic context?” Though it “may seem obvious” that the second stand is “methodologically preferable” (261), she takes the first position and concludes that “the Japanese passive has to be recognized as multiply ambiguous” (286). In the following I intend to show that this view is both wrong and fruitful.
