Arbeitspapier / Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Köln
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (31)
- Part of a Book (2)
Language
- English (33) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (33)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (33)
Keywords
- Computerlinguistik (4)
- Spracherwerb (4)
- Transkription (4)
- Grammatik (3)
- Griechisch (3)
- Neugriechisch (3)
- Software (3)
- Sprachtypologie (3)
- Australische Sprachen (2)
- Grammatiktheorie (2)
Institute
- Extern (13)
N.F. 40
It has become commonplace to introduce works on aspect with the remark that there is hardly another field in linguistics so much plagued by terminological and notional confusion. [..] About 20 major books claiming a comprehensive treatment have come to my attention during little more than the past half decade […]. Among these books are five that form the subject of this paper in a narrower sense, given that the present article originally started out as a combined review of these five works: […] Even if one is not at all keen on monocultures, it is clear that the obvious disunity in fundamental points of view makes the situation increasingly difficult for the "ordinary working linguist". It is getting impossible to keep up with the many different issues raised in the theoretical literature when, for instance, writing a chapter on aspect for a descriptive grammar of a language. As a result, a tremendous gap between descriptive and theoretical work has arisen. This has not gone unnoticed in the literature. There are several recent publications in which explicit attempts are made to bridge this gap […], all of them trying to add a typological perspective to aspect theory and to free it from its purely truth-conditional embedding, which was the dominant paradigm in the 70ies and 80ies. But again, these works are often themselves cast into specific theoretical frameworks, more often than not ignoring other approaches to the field if they do not fit their persuasions. I will therefore avail myself of the opportunity of this review article by briefly sorting out the differences in the fundamental assumptions and theoretical primitives of the various approaches, in order to come to grips with the aspectological landscape. A general, chiefly historically oriented assessment is presented in the first part of this paper (see section 1). The second part is then devoted to a detailed discussion of the books under review against the background etablished in this survey (see section 2). At the end, I will try to draw some conclusions and hint at some directions for future work with aspect in a descriptive and/or typological context (see section 3).
A.F. 37
I shall use the precise term 'interlinear morphemic translation (IMT) to designate the object of this study. [...] An IMT is a translation of a text in a language L1 to a string of elements taken from L2 where, ideally, each morpheme of the L1 text is rendered by a morpheme of L2 or a configuration of symbols representing its meaning and where the sequence of the units of the translation corresponds to the sequence of the morphemes which they render. [...] An IMT is needed whenever it is essential that the reader grasp the grammatical structure of the L1 text but is presumed to be so unfamiliar with L1 that he will not be able to do so merely with the aid of a normal translation and the context in which the text is cited. [...] The primary aim of an IMT is to make the grammatical structure of the L1 text transparent. The textual fluency of the IMT by standards of the L2 grammar is a subordinate aim at best.
N.F. 37
Different languages employ different morphosyntactic devices for expressing genericity. And, of course, they also make use of different morphosyntactic and semantic or pragmatic cues which may contribute to the interpretation of a sentence as generic rather than episodic. [...] We will advance the strong hypo thesis that it is a fundamental property of lexical elements in natural language that they are neutral with respect to different modes of reference or non-reference. That is, we reject the idea that a certain use of a lexical element, e.g. a use which allows reference to particular spatio-temporally bounded objects in the world, should be linguistically prior to all other possible uses, e.g. to generic and non-specific uses. From this it follows that we do not consider generic uses as derived from non-generic uses as it is occasionally assumed in the literature. Rather, we regard these two possibilities of use as equivalent alternative uses of lexical elements. The typological differences to be noted therefore concern the formal and semantic relationship of generic and non-generic uses to each other; they do not pertain to the question of whether lexical elements are predetermined for one of these two uses. Even supposing we found a language where generic uses are always zero-marked and identical to lexical sterns, we would still not assume that lexical elements in this language primarily have a generic use from which the non-generic uses are derived. (Incidentally, none of the languages examined, not even Vietnamese, meets this criterion.)
A.F. 36
Studies of syntax in first language acquisition have so far concentrated on the propositional side of the sentence, i.e. on the occurrence and interplay of semantic roles like agent, benefactive, objective, etc. and their syntactic expression. The modality constituent, however, has received little attention in the study of child language. This may be due in part to the impetus more recent research in this field has received from studies of the acquisition of English, a language with poor verb morphology as compared to synthetic languages. The research to be presented in this paper is concerned with an early stage of the acquisition of Modern Greek as a first language, a language with a particularly rich verb morphology. Since modality, aspect, and tense are obligatorily marked on the main verb in Mod. Greek, this language offers an excellent opportunity for studying the development of these fundamental categories of verbal grammar at an earlier stage than in more analytic languages. [...] As this paper is concerned with the semantic categories of verbal grammar mentioned above as weIl as with their formal expression, only utterances containing a verb will be considered. For reasons of space we shall further limit ourselves to those utterances containing a main verb. Such utterances divide into two classes, modal and non-modal. [...] In spite of Calbert's claim (Calbert 1975) that there are no strictly non-modal expressions, affirmative and negative statements as well as questions not containing a modal verb will be considered as non-modal. As will be shown below, modal and non-modal expressions are formally differentiated at the stage of language acquisition studied.
N.F. 35
In the present monograph, we will deal with questions of lexical typology in the nominal domain. By the term "lexical typology in the nominal domain", we refer to crosslinguistic regularities in the interaction between (a) those areas of the lexicon whose elements are capable of being used in the construction of "referring phrases" or "terms" and (b) the grammatical patterns in which these elements are involved. In the traditional analyses of a language such as English, such phrases are called "nominal phrases". In the study of the lexical aspects of the relevant domain, however, we will not confine ourselves to the investigation of "nouns" and "pronouns" but intend to take into consideration all those parts of speech which systematically alternate with nouns, either as heads or as modifiers of nominal phrases. In particular, this holds true for adjectives both in English and in other Standard European Languages. It is well known that adjectives are often difficult to distinguish from nouns, or that elements with an overt adjectival marker are used interchangeably with nouns, especially in particular semantic fields such as those denoting MATERIALS or NATlONALlTIES. That is, throughout this work the expression "lexical typology in the nominal domain" should not be interpreted as "a typology of nouns", but, rather, as the cross-linguistic investigation of lexical areas constitutive for "referring phrases" irrespective of how the parts-of-speech system in a specific language is defined.
A.F. 33
In my paper "Thesen zum Universalienprojekt" (1976) I mention two complementary procedures for discovering language universals: 1. The investigation of the dimensions and principles whose existence is necessitated by the communicative function of language; 2. The development of a formal language in which all syntactic rules are explicitly formulated and in which all syntactic categories are defined by their relation to a minimally necessary number of syntactic categories. Since the first procedure is treated in many of the other papers of this volume, I wish to discuss the role of formal methods in the research of language universals. As an example I want to take the dimensions of determination and show how expressions denoting concepts are modified and turned into reference identifying expressions. There is a general end a specific motivation for the introduction of formal methods into linguistics. The general motivation is to make statements in linguistics as exact and verifiable as they are in the natural sciences. The specific motivation is to make the grammars of various languages comparable by describing them with the same form of rules. The form has to be flexible enough to describe the phenomena of any possible natural language. All natural languages have in common that they may potentially express any meaning. The flexibility of the form of grammatical rules may therefore be attained, if syntactic rules are not isolated from the semantic function they express and syntactic classes are not defined merely by the relative position of their elements in the sentence, but also by the communicative function their elements fulfill in their combination with elements of other classes.
Montague (1974) has shown that this flexibility may be attained by using the language of algebra combined with categorial grammar. Algebraic systems have been developed by mathematicians to model any systems whose operations are definable. Montague does not merely use the tools of mathematics for describing the features of language, but regards syntax, semantics and pragmatics as branches of mathematics. One of the advantages of this approach is that we may apply the laws developed by mathematicians to the systems constructed by linguists for the description and explanation of natural language.
N.F. 33
This study examines the particularities of multilingual discourse, based on the example of recorded conversations in a trilingual family in Canada. It combines two different fields of linguistic research: multilingualism and conversation analysis. The study of multilingualism has developed into a popular field of linguistic research over the past two decades. In general, it focuses on bilingualism as a social and individual phenomenon, and in particular on the alternation between two languages in the speech of bilinguals. For this alternation, the term code-switching is widely used. Usually, the term refers to language alternation both between sentences and within sentence boundaries. From a sociolinguistic perspective code-switching is often interpreted as a means of signaling group membership in bilingual communities, whereas grammatical analyses examine how morphosyntactic units from different languages are combined (and can be combined) within one sentence. Auer (1998: 3) suggests the study of the conversational structure of code-switching as a third perspective on bilingual language usage, one that he claims has been widely neglected by linguistic research in the past. In particular, those cases of language alternation between utterances (sentences) but within the same conversation cannot be described adequately from either a macro-sociolinguistic or a morphosyntactic perspective.
N.F. 32
In this paper we test previous claims concerning the universality of patterns of polysemy and semantic change in perception verbs. Implicit in such claims are two elements: firstly, that the sharing of two related senses A and B by a given form is cross-linguistically widespread, and matched by a complementary lack of some rival polysemy, and secondly that the explanation for the ubiquity of a given pattern of polysemy is ultimately rooted in our shared human cognitive make-up. However, in comparison to the vigorous testing of claimed universals that has occurred in phonology, syntax and even basic lexical meaning, there has been little attempt to test proposed universals of semantic extension against a detailed areal study of non-European languages. To address this problem we examine a broad range of Australian languages to evaluate two hypothesized universals: one by Viberg (1984), concerning patterns of semantic extension across sensory modalities within the domain of perception verbs (i .e. intra-field extensions), and the other by Sweetser (1990), concerning the mapping of perception to cognition (i.e. trans-field extensions). Testing against the Australian data allows one claimed universal to survive, but demolishes the other, even though both assign primacy to vision among the senses.
N.F. 30
A.F. 28
Bestimmte seit den sechziger Jahren zur Analyse früher kindlicher Äußerungen benutzte Beschreibungsmodelle unterschätzen die sprachliche Kompetenz des Kindes, indem sie die Struktur seiner Äußerungen auf Distributionsphänomene der Oberflächenstruktur reduzieren, andere Modelle überschätzen diese Kompetenz, indem sie kindlichen Äußerungen mehr sprachliche Information zuschreiben, als sie enthalten. Wenn außersprachliche Information auf systematische Art und Weise in die Untersuchung der sprachlichen Kommunikation zwischen Kind und Erwachsenem einbezogen wird, findet einerseits die Tatsache eine Erklärung, daß diese Kommunikation in so erstaunlichem Maße erfolgreich ist, andererseits erlaubt diese Beschreibungsweise es aber, frühe kindliche Äußerungen als sprachlich so undeterminiert darzustellen, wie sie sind.