Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (101)
- Article (38)
- Conference Proceeding (23)
- Working Paper (23)
- Report (7)
- Preprint (6)
- Book (3)
- Review (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (155)
- German (40)
- Croatian (5)
- Portuguese (3)
- Turkish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (204)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (204)
Keywords
- Informationsstruktur (37)
- Syntax (37)
- Deutsch (34)
- Generative Transformationsgrammatik (31)
- Grammatik (17)
- Semantik (17)
- Englisch (11)
- Grammatiktheorie (11)
- Russisch (11)
- Linguistik (10)
Institute
It is common knowledge in the field of Philippine linguistics that an ang-marked direct object in a non-actor focus clause must be definite or generic, while a ng-marked object in an actor focus clause typically receives a nonspecific interpretation. However, in contexts like wh-questions, the oblique object in an antipassive may be interpreted as specific, as noted by Schachter & Otanes (1972), Maclachlan & Nakamura (1997), Rackowski (2002), and others. […] In this paper, I propose to account for the specificity effects […] within the analysis of Tagalog syntax put forth by Aldridge (2004). I analyze Tagalog as an ergative language […]. Cross linguistically, antipassive oblique objects receive a nonspecific interpretation, while absolutives are definite or generic. I show in this paper how the Tagalog facts can be subsumed under a general account of ergativity.
In this paper I investigate a change in the word order patterns of Greek nominalizations that took place from the Classical Greek (CG) period to the Modem Greek (MG) one. Specifically, in CG both the patterns in (A), with its two subtypes, and (B) were possible; the MG system, on the other hand, exhibits only the (B) pattern. The difference between the two systems is that agents can only be introduced in the form of prepositional phrase in MG nominals in a position following the head noun, while they could appear in a prenominal position bearing genitive case in CG. Moreover, the theme genitive, i.e. the objective genitive, could precede the head nominal in CG; this is no longer the case in MG, where the theme genitive follows the head noun obligatorily:
(A) i) Det-(Genagent)-Nprocess-Gentheme 1 ii) Det-Gentheme-Nprocess
(B)Det-Nprocess-Gentheme (Ppagent)
I argue that the unavailability of (A) in MG is linked to the nature and the properties associated with a nominal functional projection contained within process non~inals and to other related changes in the nominal system of Greek.
Bu çalışmada, Türkçedeki emir kipinin bir alt ulamı olan ve Almancada Jussiv terimiyle karşılanan 3. kişilere yönelik emir-istek1 biçimleri ve bunların Almancaya nasıl aktarılabileceği konulaştırılmaktadır. Bu amaçla Yaşar Kemal’in Kuşlar da Gittiromanındaki söz konusu emir-istek biçimleri aynı kitabın Almanca çevirisi Auch die Vögel sind fort’taki çevirileriyle karşılaştırılmaktadır. Karşılaştırmanın amacı çeviri eleştirisi değildir; yalnızca durum saptaması yapılmaktadır. Saptanan çeviri olanaklarının Alman dili eğitimi öğrencilerinde nasıl yansıma bulacağını görebilmek için bir de dar kapsamlı bir çeviri anketi uygulanmıştır. Türk dilinin bu dolaylı emir-istek için somut dilbilgisel bir ulam (Ali gelsin!) geliştirmişken, Almancada bire bir karşılaştırılabilir dilbilgisel bir eşdeğerlilik saptanmamıştır. Bu ulamın işlevi Almancada özellikle 3. kişi dolaylı anlatımla (Jeder kehre vor seiner eigenen Haustür!) ve yardımcı eylemlerle (Das Feuer soll von hier mitgenommen werden) karşılanmaktadır. Anlamsal bir ulam olan kipselliğin Türkçe ifadesindeki birçok örtüşmezlik, bu konunun Almanca öğretiminde daha çok dikkate alınması gerektiğini göstermiştir. Öğrencilerle yaptığımız çeviri uygulamasındaki diğer saptamamız, çevirilerdeki yetersizliğin sözlük kullanımındaki yetersizliğe dayandığıdır.
Causative, which is analyzed in the context of voice, differs widely in Turkish and German languages. A causative can be obtained nearly from each verb in Turkish language while this category is not productive in German Language. Like prefixes, which are of great importance in German language, the causative has the same significance in Turkish language. Causatives can be divided into three: a) lexical causative, causative existing in words' own meaning; for instance, there exists such a relationship between the words "slide" and "fall"; b) morphological causative consists of morphemes (öl-dür-t-mek); c) whereas, the context is important for the operant causative. When we say “It smells gas in here’ it may have been intended to open a window and we can make it done. There is a direct connection between the causative and causality. Because, in causative instead of doing something directly, it may be caused to be done or occurred. The notion of causative in German has been reviewed in the semantic context at a low degree. This is because of the fact that, morphological causative verbs are fewer and new causative voices can't be formed. However, this issue has been handled in a very detailed manner especially at morphological level in Turkish language. There is even fine detail under the title causative itself. The most important characteristic of causative is to change the combination value of the verbs. However, the relation between causative and passive is just the opposite of this and asymmetric. Structures having semantic similarities with causatives and named as Funktionsverbgefüge (put into practice = apply) in German exist. Reciprocal voices and reflexive voices, the most important voices of Turkish language, generally allow the formation of causative verb.
Negation und Modalität
(2009)
Der vorliegende Artikel behandelt die Problematik der Negation im Rahmen der Modalität. Die Aufmerksamkeit richtet sich auf formale und inhaltliche Aspekte der Negation auf dem modalen Feld. Nach dem Vergleich der Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten der Negation im Deutschen und Slowakischen werden die Auswirkungen der Negation auf die semantische Ebene der Modalverben (weiter nur MV) in beiden Sprachen konkret behandelt. Es gibt mehrere Verfahren zur Skopusfestlegung des Negators. Im Artikel wird ein Modell präsentiert, das die Diskrepanz zwischen der oberflächlichen und tatsächlichen Negation in beiden Sprachen zeigt.
Traditionally, the term "grammatical relation" (GR) refers to the morphosyntactic properties that relate an argument to a clause, as, for example, its subject or its object. Alternative terms are "syntactic function" or "syntactic role", and they highlight the fact that GRs are defined by the way in which arguments are integrated syntactically into a clause, i.e. by functioning as subject, object etc. Whatever terminology one prefers, what is crucial about the traditional notion of GRs is (a) that they are identified by syntactic properties, and (b) that they relate an argument to the clause.
Languages vary in whether or not primary grammatical relations (PGRs) are sensitive to information from clause-level case or phrase structures. This variation correlates with a difference between verb agreement systems based on feature unification and systems based on feature composition. The choice between different PGR and agreement principles is found to be highly stable genetically and to characterize Indo-European as systematically different from Sino-Tibetan. Although the choice is partially similar to the Configurationality Parameter, it is shown that Indo-European languages of South Asia are nonconfigurational due to areal pressure but follow their European relatives in PGR and agreement principles.
Ever since Wilhelm von Humboldt’s (1836) pioneering study of Nahuatl, linguists have recurrently recognized that languages differ fundamentally in the syntactic weight they attribute to noun-phrases as the arguments of a verb. Currently, the most prominent attempts to turn this intuition into a precise hypothesis revolve around the notion of ‘configurationality’.