Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
- 2004 (15) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (12)
- Article (1)
- Report (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
- Aspekt <Linguistik> (3)
- Morphonologie (3)
- Optimalitätstheorie (3)
- Russisch (3)
- Spracherwerb (3)
- Austronesische Sprachen (2)
- Deutsch (2)
- Morphologie (2)
- Syntax (2)
- Affix (1)
For this paper, 170 Tibeto-Burman languages were surveyed for nominal ease marking (adpositions), in an attempt to determine ifit would be possible to reeonstruet any ease markers to Proto· Tibeto-Burman, and in so doing leam more about the nature of the grammatieal organization of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. The data were also eross-cheeked for patterns of isomorphy/polysemy, to see ifwe can leam anything about the development ofthe forms we da find in the languages. The results of the survey indicate that although a11 Tibeto-Bunnan languages have developed some sort of relation marking, none of the markers ean be reconstrueted to the oldest stage of the family. Looking at the patterns of isomorphy or polysemy, we find there are regularities to the patterns we find, and on the basis of these regularities we can make assurne that the path of development most probably followed the markedness/prototypicality clines: the locative and ablative use would have arose first and then were extended to the more abstract cases.
"A team", definitely
(2004)
Schwankungen zwischen starker und schwacher Flexion werden mit unterschiedlichen Graden von Determinativhaftigkeit verschiedener Pronominaladjektive korreliert, bezogen auf eine universelle Dimension der IDENTIFIKATION (nach Seiler), sowie mit unterschiedlichen Graden der Ausgeprägtheit determinativischer (starker) Flexion, bezogen auf eine Ordnung nach formaler Markanz verschiedener Wortformen. Es wird gezeigt, dass stärkere Determinativhaftigkeit der Lexeme schwache Flexion bei folgenden Adjektiven begünstigt. Bezüglich der Varianz bei verschiedenen paradigmatischen Formen wird die Vermutung gestützt, dass das Formengewicht der Endungen eine wesentliche Rolle spielt.
In morphological systems of the agglutinative type we sometimes encounter a nearly perfect one-to-one relation between form and function. Turkish inflectional morphology is, of course, the standard textbook example. Things seem to be quite different in systems of the flexive type. Declension in Contemporary Standard Russian (henceforth Russian, for short) may be cited as a typical example: We find, among other things, cumulative markers, “synonymous” endings (e.g., dative singular noun forms in -i, -e, or -u), and “homonymous” endings (e.g., -i, genitive, dative, and prepositional singular). True, some endings are more of an agglutinative nature, being bound to a specific case-number combination and applying across declensions, e.g., -am (dative plural, all nouns); and some cross the boundaries of word classes, e.g., -o, which serves as the nominative/accusative singular ending of neuter forms of pronouns (and adjectives) and as the nominative/accusative singular ending of (most) neuter nouns as well. Still, many observers have been struck by the impression that what we face here are rather uneconomic or even, so to speak, unnatural structures. But perhaps flexive systems are not as complicated as they seem. What seems to be uneconomic complexity may be, at least partially, an artifact of uneconomic descriptions.