Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (9)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Book (1)
- Preprint (1)
Language
- English (15) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
- Dialektologie (4)
- Schweizerdeutsch (3)
- Chatten <Kommunikation> (2)
- Prosodie (2)
- Sinotibetische Sprachen (2)
- Slawische Sprachen (2)
- Arabisch (1)
- Bulgarisch (1)
- Cross-dialectal Diversity (1)
- Dialekt (1)
Institute
This article provides a comparative overview of phonological and phonetic differences of Mukrī Kurdish varieties and their geographical distribution. Based on the examined data, four distinct varieties can be distinguished. In each variety area, different phonological patterns are analyzed according to age, gender, and social groups in order to establish cross-regional and cross-generational developments in relation to specific phonological distributions and shifts. The variety regions which are examined in the present article include West Mukrī (representing an archaic form of Mukrī), Central Mukrī (representing a linguistically peripheral dialect), East Mukrī (representing mixed archaic and peripheral dialect features), and South Mukrī (sharing features of both Mukrī and Ardałānī). The study concludes that variation in the Mukrīyān region depends on phonological developments, which in turn are due to geographical and sociological factors. Moreover, contact-induced change and internal language development are also established as triggering factors distinguishing regional variants.
This paper presents doublets in the phonology and accentuation of a Kajkavian dialect in central Croatia, where all three major Croatian groups of dialects meet. Inconsistencies in the vowel and consonant systems are also noted. The second part considers the accentual system, its units and their distribution. Many fluctuations were noted, even with respect to retractions and special Kajkavian features. These are explained through influences of neihbouring local dialects and from the urban dialect of Karlovac and Standard Croatian.
Rawang Texts
(2001)
This volume is a collection of fully analyzed texts of the Mvtwang dialect of the Rawang language collected as part of fieldwork on the language. The Rawang language belongs to a larger grouping of languages/ dialects we can call Dulong/Rawang or Dulong/Rawang/Anong spoken on both sides of the ClUna/Myanmar (Burma) border just south and east of Tibet. In China, the people who speak this language for the most part live in Gongshan county of Yunnan province, and belong to either what is known as the "Dulong" nationality (pop. 5816 according to the 1990 census), or to one part (roughly 6,000 people) of the Nu nationality (those who live along the upper reaches of the Nu River-the part of the Salween within China). Another subgroup of the Nu people, those who live along the lower reaches of the Nu river (in China), speak a language called "Anong" which seems to be the same as, or closely related to, the Kwinpang dialect spoken in Myanmar, so should also be considered a dialect ofDulong/Rawang. Within Myanmar, the people who speak the Rawang language (possibly up to 100,000 people) live in northern Kachin State, particularly along the Mae Hka ('Nmai Hka) and Maeli Hka (Mali Hka) river valleys. In the past they had been called "Hkanung" or "Nung", and have often been considered to be a sub-group of the Kachin (Jinghpaw). Among themselves they have had no general term for the entire group; they use their respective clan names to refer to themselves. This is true also of those who live in China, although these people have accepted the exonym "Dulong" (or "Taron", or "Trung"), a name they were given because they mostly live in the valley of the Dulong (Taron/Trung) River.
In this study, cross-dialectal variation in the use of the acoustic cues of VOT and F0 to mark the laryngeal contrast in Korean stops is examined with Chonnam Korean and Seoul Korean. Prior experimental results (Han & Weitzman, 1970; Hardcastle, 1973; Jun, 1993 &1998; Kim, C., 1965) show that pitch values in the vowel onset following the target stop consonants play a supplementary role to VOT in designating the three contrastive laryngeal categories. F0 contours are determined in part by the intonational system of a language, which raises the question of how the intonational system interacts with phonological contrasts. Intonational difference might be linked to dissimilar patterns in using the complementary acoustic cues of VOT and F0. This hypothesis is tested with 6 Korean speakers, three Seoul Korean and three Chonnam Korean speakers. The results show that Chonnam Korean involves more 3-way VOT and a 2-way distinction in F0 distribution in comparison to Seoul Korean that shows more 3-way F0 distribution and a 2-way VOT distinction. The two acoustic cues are complementary in that one cue is rather faithful in marking 3-way contrast, while the other cue marks the contrast less distinctively. It also seems that these variations are not completely arbitrary, but linked to the phonological characteristics in dialects. Chonnam Korean, in which the initial tonal realization in the accentual phrase is expected to be more salient, tends to minimize the F0 perturbation effect from the preceding consonants by taking more overlaps in F0 distribution. And a 3-way distribution of VOT in Chonnam Korean, as compensation, can be also understood as a durational sensitivity. Without these characteristics, Seoul Korean shows relatively more overlapping distribution in VOT and more 3-way separation in F0 distribution.
The claim advanced in this paper is that the presence of a left-dislocated element together with a resumptive clitic in Bulgarian is a special case of argument saturation with implications for the focus structure of the clause, while contrast involves discontinuous focus (contrastive topics/foci) with no clitics present in the derivation. Contrastive topic/focus constructions in Bulgarian can be united on the view that they involve (sets of) ordered pairs where the higher element is valuing a contrastive feature (cf. OCC in Chomsky 2001) while the element in the VP is a non-contrastive topic or focus. The contrastive feature participates in wh-structures but not in clitic-left-dislocated structures where pairing between arguments is 'accidental'.
The present volume results from an initiative to foster cooperation between scholars of Himalayan languages in Europe. The initiative was launched five years ago and has brought about a series of annual workshop meetings and individual cooperative projects (cf. http://www.isw.unibe.ch/EuroHimal). The 1998 workshop, held in Heidelberg, was devoted to the role that notions of speech act participants play in the grammar of various Himalayan languages, and the present collection represents, with some additions and some subtractions, the proceedings of this workshop. In the following I will give some background on the rationale for the topics covered in this volume, especially on the ways in which the indexing of speech act participants is related in Himalayan languages to evidentials and other epistemological operators. I will close this introduction with a brief outline of the structure of the volume.
Sino-Tibetan is a prime example of how strongly a language family can typologically diversify under the pressure of areal spread features (Matisoff 1991, 1999). One of the manifestation of this is the average length of prosodic words. In Southeast Asia, prosodic words tend to average on one or one-and-a-half syllables. In the Himalayas, by contrast, it is not uncommon to encounter prosodic words containing five to ten syllables. The following pair of examples illustrates this.
Twenty years ago I discussed the oldest isoglosses in the South Slavic linguistic area (1982). Subscribing to Van Wijk’s view that the bundle of isoglosses which separates Bulgarian from Serbo-Croatian was the result of an early split in South Slavic and that the transitional dialects originated from a later mixture of Serbian and Bulgarian dialects when the contact between the two languages had been restored (1927), I argued that the shared innovations of Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian must be dated to a period when the dialects were still spoken in the original Trans-Carpathian homeland of the Slavs. I concluded that there is no evidence for common innovations of South Slavic which were posterior to the end of what I have called the Late Middle Slavic period, which I dated to the 4th through 6th centuries AD. At that time, the major dialect divisions of Slavic were already established.
It is no secret that Gerhard Doerfer has argued strongly against a genetic relationship between the Mongolic and Tungusic languages. Ten years ago he presented a detailed analysis of the Mongolo-Tungusic vocabulary (1985). In the following I intend to show that his material allows of a quite different conclusion.