410 Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (12)
- Part of a Book (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (14)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (14)
Keywords
- Sprachliche Universalien (14) (remove)
In this paper it is argued that several typologically unrelated languages share the tendency to avoid voiced sibilant affricates. This tendency is explained by appealing to the phonetic properties of the sounds, and in particular to their aerodynamic characteristics. On the basis of experimental evidence it is shown that conflicting air pressure requirements for maintaining voicing and frication are responsible for the avoidance of voiced affricates. In particular, the air pressure released from the stop phase of the affricate is too high to maintain voicing which in consequence leads to a devoicing of the frication part.
The present article illustrates that the specific articulatory and aerodynamic requirements for voiced but not voiceless alveolar or dental stops can cause tongue tip retraction and tongue mid lowering and thus retroflexion of front coronals. This retroflexion is shown to have occurred diachronically in the three typologically unrelated languages Dhao (Malayo-Polynesian), Thulung (Sino-Tibetan), and Afar (East-Cushitic). In addition to the diachronic cases, we provide synchronic data for retroflexion from an articulatory study with four speakers of German, a language usually described as having alveolar stops. With these combined data we supply evidence that voiced retroflex stops (as the only retroflex segments in a language) did not necessarily emerge from implosives, as argued by Haudricourt (1950), Greenberg (1970), Bhat (1973), and Ohala (1983). Instead, we propose that the voiced front coronal plosive /d/ is generally articulated in a way that favours retroflexion, that is, with a smaller and more retracted place of articulation and a lower tongue and jaw position than /t/.
Why should we engage in language universals research and language typology? What do we want to explain? It is a fact that, although languages differ significantly and considerably. indeed, no one would deny, that they have something in common; how else could they be labelled 'language'? - There is obviously unity among them, no matter how vaguely felt and for what reasons: Scientific, practical, moral, etc. Neither diversity per se nor unity per se is what we want to explain. There is no reason whatsoever to consider either one of them as primary, and the other as derived. What we do want to explain is "equivalence in difference" – cf. our motto – which manifests itself, among others, in the translatability from one language to another, the learnability of any language, language change – which all presuppose that speakers intuitively find their way from diversity to unity. This is a highly salient property which deserves to be brought into our consciousness. Generally then, our basic goal is to explain the way in which language-specific facts are connected with a unitarian concept of language – "die Sprache" – "le langage".
The Stanford Project on Language Universals began its activities in October 1967 and brought them to an end in August 1976. Its directors were Joseph H. Greenberg and Charles A. Ferguson. The Cologne Project on Language Universals and Typology [with particular reference to functional aspects], abbreviated UNITYP, had its early beginnings in 1972, but deployed its full activities from 1976 onwards and is still operating. This writer, who is the principal investigator, had the privilege of collaborating with the Stanford Project during spring of 1976. […] One of the leading Greenbergian ideas is that of implicational generalizations, has been integrated as a fundamental principle in the construction of continua and of universal dimensions as proposed by UNITYP. It is hoped that the following considerations on numeral systems will be apt to bear witness to this situation. They would be unthinkable without Greenberg’s pioneering work on "Generalizations about numeral systems" (Greenberg 1978: 249 ff., henceforth referred to as Greenberg, NS). Further work on this domain and on other comparable domains almost inevitably leads one to the view that generalizations of the Greenberg type have a functional significance and that a dimensional framework is apt to bring this to the fore. This is the view on linguistic behaviour as being purposeful, and on language as a problem- solving device. The problem consists in the linguistic representation of cognitive-conceptual ideas. The solution is represented by the corresponding linguistic structures in their diversity and the task of the linguist consists in reconstructing the program and subprograms underlying the process of problem-solving. It is claimed that the construct of continua and of universal dimensions makes these programs intelligible.
Die folgende Vorlesung hat die universalen Dimensionen der Sprache zum Gegenstand, wie sie bis jetzt von der in Köln ansässigen Forschergruppe UNITYP erforscht und erarbeitet worden sind. ("UNITYP" steht für "Sprachliche Universalienforschung und Typologie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung funktionaler Aspekte.") Es handelt sich um eine vorläufige Bilanz, vorgestellt werden soll nicht eine monolithische, abgeschlossene Theorie mit endgültigen Resultaten. Daher sollten die bereits publizierten Ergebnisse "not as the final version of a ready-made theory of language" angesehen werden, "this would mean that the UNITYP-group has reached the end of its research and is no longer productive." (cf. Ramat 1984:365) Das erarbeitete Modell ist seiner Anlage nach offen. Das Ziel dieser Vorlesung besteht vielmehr darin, in eine bestimmte Art des linguistischen Denkens, in eine spezifische Methode des Herangehens an Sprachdaten einzuführen, mit dem Anspruch, dadurch zu einem besseren Verständnis sprachlicher Fakten beizutragen. Der Wert einer Theorie bemißt sich überhaupt daran, inwieweit sie imstande ist, zu einem besseren und tiefgreifenderen Verständnis des durch sie Systematisierten anleiten zu können. Auch insofern steht hier nicht lediglich die Präsentation fertiger Resultate, sondern die Vermittlung eines bestimmten linguistischen Sprachverstehens im Vordergrund, das zu eigenem Weiterarbeiten befähigen und anregen soll. Metawissenschaftlich-methodische Fragen, wie die nach dem, was ein sprachliches Faktum überhaupt ist, werden zunächst zurückgestellt.
The aim of this contribution is to embed the question of an antinomy between "integral" vs. "partial typology", inscribed as the topic of this plenary session, into the comprehensive framework of the dimensional model of the research group on language universals and typology (UNITYP). In this introductory section I shall evoke some cardinal points in the theory of linguistic typology, as viewed "from outside", viz. on the basis of striking parallelisms with psychological typology. Section 2 will permit a brief look on the dimensional model of UNITYP. In section 3 I shall present an illustration of a typological treatment on the basis of one particular dimension. In section 4 I shall draw some conclusions with special reference to the "integral vs. partial" antinomy.
Der unmittelbare Anlaß der folgenden etwas scholastisch anmutenden Begriffsdistinktionen war die Erfahrung mit der Vorbereitung und dem Verlauf der Sektionssitzung zum Thema "Der Universalienstreit heute" am 16. Weltkongreß für Philosophie 1978 in Düsseldorf. Die Mehrheit der Philosophen assoziierte das Thema mit dem traditionellen Streit zwischen Nominalisten, Konzeptualisten und Realisten und nicht mit der in der Linguistik seit zwei Jahrzehnten neu angefachten Problematik, die in der traditionellen Philosophie unter dem Titel Grammatica universalis behandelt worden war. Darüber hinaus wurde allermeist gar nicht realisiert, daß der Terminus universal in den beiden Themenkreisen auch in formaler Hinsicht nicht im gleichen Sinn gebraucht wird {vgl. § ll}. Eine Konsultation der wissenschaftstheoretischen Literatur ergab dann, daß in ihr, bei aller Oberproduktion von Textbüchern und Sammelbänden, universal und sein ganzes Wortfeld kaum je explizit und systematisch diskutiert und definiert wird. Gewöhnlich hält man sich an die in der klassischen Logik geläufige Unterscheidung zwischen generellen, universalen, partikulären und singulären Aussagen (vgl. § 9.1.) oder an die kantianische zwischen generalen (induktiven) und universalen (deduktiven) Aussagen (vgl. § 9.3.). Neu in den Vordergrund gerückte Gesichtspunkte in der formalen Struktur von allgemeinen wissenschaftlichen Aussagen (vgl. § 9.4.) werden dagegen kaum reflektiert und terminologisch fixiert. Dies gilt insbesondere für den linguistischen Bereich, dessen Probleme und Leistungen in der allgemeinen Wissenschaftstheorie trotz aller Achtungsbezeugungen kaum einen Niederschlag gefunden haben. Die folgenden Ausführungen sind daher auch als ein bescheidener, nämlich bloß terminologischer und begriffsdefinitorischer Beitrag zur Sch1ießung dieser Lücke intendiert.
The search for universals is a tendency which is based in the structure of human knowledge and which correlates with a complementary search for individual properties. The recurrence to universals is inherent in both classificatory and deductive knowledge. Admittingly, the attempt to classify the definitorial universals of human language hierarchically meets various difficulties. In contrast to the universals of the formal systems of logic and mathematics, the universals of human language are of a heterogeneous character. Often the relation among the universals of language is not to be determined merely as a relation of logical compatibility or implication, but, additionally, as a relation of means and end. Not everything which is logically possible according to certain basic universals of language is also realized by the languages. Beyond the logical possibilities linguistics must recognize structural, perceptual and cognitive restrictions. – Universal properties have the merit that they are, presumably, more fundamental in the language system than the mere particular properties. – One of the important discoveries of the more recent investigation in language universals is that diversities, in particular certain types of interlingual inversions and gradual distinctions in the development of a dimension, are also subject to universal laws. – As a motive for research in language universals, which is also a motive for the opposed inquiry in linguistic relativity, one must ultimately consider a psycho-sociological factor. According to the level at which one seeks identification with a gruppe (ethnocentric or anthropocentric) one will be more likely to advocate a constrative linguistics (in the broadest sense of the term) or a universal linguistics.