410 Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (14)
Has Fulltext
- yes (14)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (14)
Keywords
- Sprachliche Universalien (6)
- Sprachtypologie (4)
- Possessivität (3)
- Funktionalismus <Linguistik> (2)
- Linguistik (2)
- Possessivkonstruktion (2)
- Antonym (1)
- Determination <Linguistik> (1)
- Ikon (1)
- Kognitive Semantik (1)
In this study I want to show, above all, that the linguistic expression of POSSESSION is not a given but represents a problem to be solved by the human mind. We must recognize from the outset that linguistic POSSESSION presupposes conceptual or notional POSSESSION, and I shall say more about the latter in Chapter 3. Certain varieties of linguistic structures in the particular languages are united by the fact that they serve the common purpose of expressing notional POS SESSION. But this cannot be their sole common denominator. How would we otherwise be able to recognize, to understand, to learn and to translate a particular linguistic structure as representing POSSESSION? There must be a properly linguistic common denominator, an invariant, that makes this possible. The invariant must be present both within a particular language and in cross-language comparison. What is the nature of such an invariant? As I intend to show, it consists in operational programs and functional principles corresponding to the purpose of expressing notional POSSESSION. The structures of possessivity which we find in the languages of the world represent the traces of these operations, and from the traces it becomes possible to reconstruct stepwise the operations and functions.
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.
Actually, the title should include intralinguistic variation along with the interlinguistic one. For variation within one and the same language is the thing which directly presents itself to the observation while it still remains to be demonstrated that phenomena in different languages can be regarded as variants to be assigned to one and the same invariant principle. There are two senses in which the terms of variant, variation are used in the following remarks: one, which has just been mentioned, concerns the assignment of variants to some definite invariant. The other implies the possibility of gradient transitions and opposes the notions of discreteness and of yes-or-no. I shall not try here to reconcile these two senses and I trust that what I intend to show will become intelligible nevertheless. Henri Delacroix (1924:126f) has reformulated an old hypothesis which seems worth exploring in connection with the search for language universals: "Une langue est une variation historique sur le grand thème humain du langage." It remains to be seen what "le grand thème" or rather "les grands thèmes" are about and what particular language-specific properties could be shown to be variants of one and the same theme. One such major theme which we shall now investigate is the interrelation between, on one side, a word or a sequence of words, and, on the other, a sentence. As this for us is not only a syntactic but also a semantic problem, we might rephrase the anti thesis as that between a term or sequence of terms and a proposition. Two alternative views on the nature of this interrelation seem conceivable: A. The interrelation is yes-or-no, i. e. an element or a string of elements either constitutes a term (sequence of terms) or a proposition. B. The interrelation is of gradient nature, i. e. we find intermediary stages. Both alternatives are appropriate, but under different circumstances.
Die Termini Possessivität und Possession, die wir synonym für einander verwenden wollen, sind vorwissenschaftlich. Ihr Inhalt hat in keinem der Modelle der synchronen Sprachbeschreibung eine befriedigende Präzisierung erfahren. Die Auffassungen darüber, was man in gewissen Sprachen als possessiv anzusehen hat, schwanken. Man hat sich, mit Recht, gefragt, ob man einem entsprechenden Begriff überhaupt einen Platz in der Beschreibung von Sprachen – und damit in der Grammatik – einräumen solle. […] So erwägenswert manches an dieser Einschätzung auch ist, so finde ich es anderseits doch bemerkenswert, daß sich die verschiedensten Linguisten bei der Beschreibung der verschiedensten Sprachen doch immer wieder veranlaßt sehen, solche Termini – und Begriffe – wie "possessiv", "Possession" einzuführen. […] Intuitiv denkt man bei dem Terminus "Possession", "possessiv" in Sprachen wie dem Deutschen an die Konstruktionen mit Genitiv oder Possessivpronomen einerseits 'Karls/sein Haus') und an Konstruktionen mit 'haben', 'gehören', 'besitzen' anderseits ('Karl hat ein Haus'). Es hat nicht an Versuchen gefehlt, das eine auf das andere zu reduzieren. Die orthodoxe TG hat lange genug behauptet, 'Karls Haus' liege ein 'Karl hat ein Haus' zugrunde. Daß sich das nicht verallgemeinern läßt, sieht man etwa an 'Karls Tod', wozu es kein *'Karl hat einen Tod' gibt. Die Hypothese, die ich hier vorlegen und begründen möchte besteht darin, daß beide Ausdrucksweisen, also Genitiv, Possessivpronomen einerseits und 'haben' etc. anderseits einander komplementieren und erst zusammen den Phänomenbereich der Possessivität konstruieren. Eine große Rolle spielt dabei der Unterschied zwischen sogenannten relationalen und nicht-relationalen Nomina. Solche schwierigen Fragen untersucht man einerseits am besten an seiner eigenen Muttersprache. Anderseits aber hoffe ich das hier Gefundene durch die Konfrontation mit den Verhältnissen in einer davon weit abliegenden Sprache, einer Indianersprache Süd-Kaliforniens, Cahuilla, noch plastischer hervortreten zu lassen. Das hier angewendete Beschreibungsmodell ist gemischt. Die zugrundeliegenden Strukturen sind so weit wie möglich als syntaktische dargestellt. Doch konnte ich nicht umhin, in solchen syntaktischen Strukturen gewisse semantische Entitäten unterzubringen. Das gilt insbesondere für die abstrakten oder "höheren" Verben APPLIES und EXIST. Sie haben einen direkten semantischen Wert.