490 Andere Sprachen
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (13) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (13)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (13)
Keywords
- Tibetobirmanische Sprachen (2)
- Arabisch (1)
- Dialekt (1)
- Marker <Linguistik> (1)
- Nungisch (1)
- Phonetik (1)
- Retroflex (1)
- Slawische Sprachen (1)
- Standardsprache (1)
Institute
- Extern (6)
- Neuere Philologien (1)
Ḥoveret taḳtsirim : kenes ha-Ḥevrah ha-Geologit 2018 : Yiśraʿel-Ḳafrisin 25.03.2018 - 29.03.2018
(2018)
The languages of the world differ with respect to argument extraction possibilities. In languages such as English, wh-movement is possible from Spec IP and from the complement position, whereas in languages such as Malagasy only extraction from Spec IP is possible. This difference correlates with the fact that these language types obey different island constraints and behave differently with respect to wh-in situ and superiority effects. The goal of this paper is to outline an analysis for these differences. The basic idea is that in contrast to languages such as English, in Malagasy-type languages every argument can be merged in the complement position of the selecting head.
The present study poses the question on what phonetic and phonological grounds postalveolar fricatives in Polish can be analyzed as retroflex and whether postalveolar fricatives in other Slavic languages are retroflex as well. Velarization and incompatibility with front vowels are introduced as articulatory criteria for retroflexion, based on crosslinguistic data. According to these criteria, Polish and Russian have retroflex fricatives, whereas Bulgarian and Czech do not. In a phonological representation of these Slavic retroflexes, the necessity of perceptual features is shown. Lastly, it is illustrated that palatalization of retroflex fricatives both in Slavic languages and more generally causes a phonetic and phonological change to a non-retroflex sound.
In terms of the direction of development, I referred to Johanna Nichols' work on head-marking vs. dependant marking. Nichols did not make reference to any languages in Tibeto-Burman, but all of the Tibeto-Burman languages that do not have verb agreement systems are solidly dependent-marking (i.e., they have marking on the nouns for case or pragmatic function); those languages with verb agreement systems, a type of head marking, also have many dependent-marking features (of the same types as the non-pronominalized languages). The question, then, is which is older, the dependent-marking type or the headmarking (actually mixed) type?