Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (23)
Has Fulltext
- yes (23)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (23)
Keywords
- Sprachliche Universalien (6)
- Sprachtypologie (5)
- Cahuilla-Sprache (4)
- Possessivität (4)
- Funktionalismus <Linguistik> (2)
- Linguistik (2)
- Possessivkonstruktion (2)
- Semantik (2)
- Verwandtschaftsbezeichnung (2)
- Antonym (1)
Le but principal de notre essai est de poser des problèmes. En résumé de ce qui a été proposé jusqu'ici, ces problemes peuvent être formulés comme suit : 1. Comment le principe de l'iconicité intervient-il dans la tâche de la représentation de nos conceptualisations par les moyens de la langue ? 2. Quelle est la place de l'iconicité dans le cadre d'un modele dimensionnel qui réunit les trois modes de représentation que Peirce a dénommés "icon", "index", "symbol" ? 3. Quelle est 1a fonction de l'iconicité et quels sont les facteurs qui font alterner l'iconicité prédominante avec la prédominance de chacun des deux autres modes de représentation ? Certes, ces problèmes sont de portée très générale et de solution difficile. Il ne peut s'agir ici de donner des solutions définitives, mais plutôt de montrer la direction vers où s'orienter.
The basic idea I want to develop and to substantiate in this paper consists in replacing – where necessary – the traditional concept of linguistic category or linguistic relation understood as 'things', as reified hypostases, by the more dynamic concept of dimension. A dimension of language structure is not coterminous with one single category or relation but, instead, accommodates several of them. It corresponds to certain well circumscribed purposive functions of linguistic activity as well as to certain definite principles and techniques for satisfying these functions. The true universals of language are represented by these dimensions, principles, and techniques which constitute the true basis for non-historical inter-language comparison. The categories and relations used in grammar are condensations – hypostases as it were – of such dimensions, principles, and techniques. Elsewhere I have outlined the theory which I want to test here in a case study.
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.
These notes grew out of my preoccupation with writing a grammar of a particular language, Cahuilla, which is spoken in Southern California and belongs to the Uto-Aztecan family. [...] The Introduction to the Grammar as a whole – of which two sections are reproduced here in a modified version – tries to integrate the synoptic views of the different chapters into a series of comprehensive statements. The statements cluster around two topics: 1. A presentation of Cahuilla as a type of language. 2. Remarks on writing a grammar.
Oppositeness, i.e. the relation between opposites or contraries or contradictories, has a fundamental role in human cognition. In the various domains of intellectual and psychological activity we find ordering schemas that are based, in one way or another, on the cognitive figure of oppositeness. It is therefore not surprising that the figure and its corresponding ordering schemas show their reflexes in the languages of the world. [...] We shall be dealing with oppositeness in the sense that a linguistically untrained native speaker, when asked what would be the opposite of 'long' can come up with some such answer as 'short', and likewise intuitively grasp the relation between 'man' and 'woman', 'corne' and 'go', 'up' and 'down', etc. Thinking that much of the vocabulary of a language is organized in such opposite pairs we must recognize that this is an important faculty, and we are curious to know how this is done, what are the underlying conceptual-cognitive structures and processes, and how they are encoded in the languages of the world. We shall leave out of consideration such oppositions as singular vs. plural. present vs. past, voiced vs. unvoiced, oppositions that the linguist states by means of a metalanguage which is itself derived from a concept of oppositeness as manifested by the examples which I gave earlier. Our approach will connect with earlier versions of the UNITYP framework. However, as a novel feature, and, hopefully, as an improvement, we shall apply some sort of a division of labor. We shall first try to reconstruct the conceptual-cognitive content of oppositeness and to keep it separate from the discussion of its reflexes in the individual languages. We shall find that a dimensional ordering of content in PARAMETERS and a continuum of TECHNIQUES is possible already on the conceptual-cognitive level. In order to keep it distinct from the level of linguistic encoding we shall use a separate terminology, graphically marked by capital 1etters.
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.
I. Zum Problem der Possessivität im Cahuilla (Uto-Aztekisch, Süd-Kalifornien) -
Von "possessiv", ''Possessivität'' wird in den Grammatiken verschiedener Sprachen in mindestens zwei verschiedenen Zusammenhängen gesprochen: 1.) Im Zusammenhang mit den "Possessivpronomina" und mit "Genitiv", z. B. dt. 'Karls Vater', 'sein Tod', 'seine Verurteilung', 2.) Im Zusammenhang mit 'haben', 'gehören', 'besitzen'. Daß die beiden Zusammenhänge nicht koextensiv sind, zeigt sich etwa bei 'sein Tod', wo neben es kein *'er hat einen Tod' gibt. Ebenso ist neben 'Karls Vater' ein Satz wie *'Karl gehört der (oder: ein) Vater' abweichend, zumindest wenn es sich um den leiblichen Vater Karls handeln soll. Das zeigt sich auch, daß die von der TG lange geübte Praxis, die Genitiv-Syntagmen auf 'haben'-Syntagmen zurückzuführen, nicht den Tatsachen entspricht. In anderen indogermanischen Sprachen finden wir ähnliches wie im Deutschen. Wir wissen zwar, was "Possessivpronomina" qua morphologische Klasse sind; aber syntaktisch und erst recht semantisch ist das Phänomen ''Possessiv'' weitgehend ungeklärt.
[...]
Ich glaube nun in einer Sprache den Bereich der Probleme einigermaßen zu überschauen, die man traditionellerweise und ohne recht zu wissen wie, mit dem Terminus "possessiv" in Verbindung bringt. Die Sprache heißt CAHUILLA, wird im südlichen Kalifornien von wenigen Sprechern noch gesprochen und gehört zur Uto-Aztekischen Sprachfamilie.
II. Possessivität und Universalien -
In meinem ersten Vortrag bin ich davon ausgegangen, daß für eine gegebene Sprache bei guter Kenntnis derselben eine zunächst intuitive Erfassung eines Bereichs der Grammatik möglich ist, den man sodann durch eine Theorie und nachprüfbare Methoden schrittweise auf die Ebene des wissenschaftlichen Bewusstseins zu heben versucht. Es handelt sich um jenen Bereich, dessen Grundprinzipien semantischer Natur sind, an dem aber auch die Syntax einen wesentlichen Anteil hat. Wie man den Bereich nachher nennt, ist weniger wichtig; ich sehe kein Hindernis, den traditionellen Terminus "possessiv", "Possessivität" dafür zu verwenden. Auch heute, in dem zweiten Vortrag, in dem es zunächst vor allem ums Deutsche, dann aber um die Frage nach den sogenannten Universalien geht, will ich wieder davon ausgehen, daß es möglich ist, einen semanto-syntaktischen Bereich "Possessivität" intuitiv abzustecken. Ich will dafür zunächst einen prominenten Zeugen aufrufen, der das fürs Griechische getan hat: Aristoteles.
The basic question is whether POSSESSOR and POSSESSUM are on the same level as the roles of VALENCE, two additional roles as it were. My research on POSSESSION has shown (Seiler 1981:7 ff.) that this is not the case, that there is a difference in principle between POSSESSION and VALENCE. However, there are multiple interactions between the two domains, and these interactions shall constitute the object of the following inquiry. It is hoped that this will contribute to a better understanding both of POSSESSION and of VALENCE.
In my Cahuilla Grammar (Seiler 1977:276-282) and in a subsequent paper (Seiler 1980:229-236) I have drawn attention to the fact that many kin terms in this language, especially those that have a corresponding reciprocal term in the ascending direction – like niece or nephew in relation to aunt – occur in two expressions of quite different morphological shape. The following remarks are intended to furnish an explanation of this apparent duplicity.