Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (8)
- Part of a Book (5)
- Working Paper (5)
- Review (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (19)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (19)
Keywords
- Valenz <Linguistik> (19) (remove)
Institute
- Extern (1)
Valenz ist eine Zeitbombe, die im Lexikon deponiert ist und in der Grammatik detoniert. Im vorliegenden Beitrag geht es um die Grundlegung einer neuen Valenztheorie, der die Aufgabe zukommt, diese Bombe so empfindlich zu konstruieren, daß sie nicht mehr entschärft werden kann. Dabei möchte ich gleich am Anfang betonen, daß die Valenztheorie – genau und nur im Sinne der obigen Metapher – eine grammatische Teiltheorie darstellt, die nicht an ein bestimmtes Grammatikmodell gebunden ist. Zwar ist die Valenztheorie m enger Verbindung mit der Dependenzgrammatik entstanden, Valenztheorie und Dependenzgrammatik haben jedoch klar unterschiedliche Gegenstände. Auf die Bestimmung dieser Gegenstände komme ich am Ende meiner Erörterungen zu sprechen (vgl. 5.). Es soll von folgenden Arbeitsdefinitionen ausgegangen werden: (I) Valenzpotenz (kurz: Valenz) ist die Potenz relationaler Lexemwörter (Lexemwort' im Sinne von Coseriu), die zu realisierende grammatische Struktur zu prädeterminieren (vgl. auch Welke 1993; zur Relationalität vgl. Lehmann 1992:437f.). Aus dieser Arbeitsdefinition folgt, (a) daß Valenz für einen Teil der grammatischen Realisierung verantwortlich ist, aber auch (b) daß Valenz bei weitem nicht für alles in der grammatischen Realisierung verantwortlich ist. Eine ganze Reihe von morphologischen, syntaktischen, semantischen und konzeptuellen Prozessen wIe z.B. Derivation (verbale Präfixbildung), Konjugationstyp, syntaktische Konversion, Serialisierung, Graduierungen der Transitivität, Determinierung, Fokussierung usw. interagiert mit der Valenz, sobald diese eine grammatische Struktur mitzuerzeugen hat (vgl. auch 3.6).
This paper has the double objective of introducing the reader to a derivational and comparative valency dictionary compiled from 2015 to 2018 at Masaryk University in Brno and of analyzing certain cross‑linguistic contrasts between German and Czech nominal derivation that are apparent from the material covered in the dictionary. The analysis suggests that there are fewer restrictions on forming verbal nominals in Czech than there are on forming nominalized infinitives in German.
This questionnaire focuses on control structures that are instantiated by predicates that take a state of affairs (SOA) argument. Noonan (1985) has called these predicates 'complement-taking predicates'; I will use the notion of SOAAtaking predicates (SOAA = state of affairs argument).
Prototypically, complement control is instantiated by certain classes of verbs; however, adjectives (be eager to) and nouns (e.g. nominalizations such as promise) may function as control predicates as well. 'Control' refers to the pattern of argument identification between an argument of the SOAA-taking predicate and an argument of the SOAA-head. In the literature the notion of 'equi deletion' or 'equi-NP deletion' has been used (following Rosenbaum 1967), which refers to structures in which an overt argument of the matrix predicate is identified with a covert argument of the embedded predicate. This questionnaire aims at a cross-linguistic application of the notion of control and thus uses a semantic definition of complement control. It extends the notion of control to other patterns of referential dependency between arguments of a SOAA-taking predicate and of the embedded predicate.
Innerhalb der Dimension der PARTIZIPATION werden Valenz, als die minimale sprachliche Signalisierung des Vorhandenseins der RELATION der PARTIZIPATION (Seiler 1984:95) und Gerichtetheit, was wir als Orientierung bezeichnen, [...] als getrennte Techniken behandelt, die zueinander in einem implikativen Verhältnis stehen. Orientierung setzt sie VALENZ voraus, ist aber bei dieser selbst "noch nicht 'aktuell'" (ebd.101). Bei VALENZ handelt es sich um das, was "im Partizipatum selber über die Anwesenheit von Partizipanten sowohl quantitativ (Anzahl der Partizipanten) als auch qualitativ (in Bezug auf ihre strukturellen Eigenschaften so entschieden wird, daß die sprachliche Signalisierung minimal, d.h. ohne weitere Kennzeichnung insbesondere an den Partizipanten erfolgt." (Seiler 1984:97f) Ein Verb wie 'töten' beinhaltet demnach sowohl, daß zwei Partizipanten beteiligt sind, als auch, daß beide in unterschiedlicher Weise beteiligt sind. [...] [D]ie Zuordnung: Subjekt-Agens ist nicht universell vorgegeben. Eine Handlung kann als vom Agens ausgehend beschrieben werden, es kann aber auch der Patiens als Ausgangspunkt gewählt werden. [...] Die unterschiedlichen Darstellungsrichtungen bezeichnen wir im folgenden als Orientierung. [...] Den Vorgang vom Agens her darstellen heißt, diesen - syntaktisch gesehen - als zentrale Einheit des Satzes zu enkodieren, während im anderen Fall der Patiens die zentrale Einheit ist. Wir werden im folgenden die beiden unterschiedlichen Betrachtungsrichtungen als A-Orientierung bzw. O-Orientierung bezeichnen. Orientierung wird dabei als Überbegriff verwendet.
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.
U radu se iznosi pokušaj razvrstavanja glagola s elementom se u valencijskome rječniku hrvatskih glagola. Kao predložak poslužila je obrada iste vrste glagola u češkome elektroničkom valencijskom rječniku VALLEX, kao i prototipno-kontekstualna analiza povratnih glagola Branimira Belaja. Glagoli se razvrstavaju na temelju gramatičkih i semantičkih kriterija.
Ključne riječi: valencija; valencijski rječnik; glagoli sa se; element se kao čestica i kao zamjenica
Grammatical relations, particularly the notions of transitivity, case marking, ergativity, passive and antipassive have been a favourite subject of typological research during the last decade, but surprisingly, the notion of valency has been of marginal interest in cross-linguistic studies, though the syntactic and semantic status of participants is, to a great extent, determined by the relational properties of the verb. Valency is the property of the verb which determines the obligatory and optional number of its participants, their morphosyntactic form, their semantic class membership (e.g. ± animate, ± human) ,and their semantic role (e.g. agent, patient, recipient). The valency inherently gives information on the nature of the semantic and syntactic relations that hold between the verb and its participants. If a verb is combined with more participants than allowed or less than required, or if the participants do not show the required morphosyntactic form or class membership, the clause is ungrammatical. In other words, it is not sufficient to consider only the number of actants as a matter of valency, but it is only acceptable if all semantic and morphosyntactic properties of the relation between a verb and its participants that are predictable from the verb are included. The predictability of these properties results from their inherent givenness, and it does not seem reasonable to count some inherently given relational properties as a matter of valency, but not others (compare Helbig (1971:38f) and Heidolph et ale (1981:479) who distinguish between the quantitative, syntactic and semantic aspect of valency).
On transitivity
(2011)
This paper critically discusses and contrasts some of the different conceptualisations of transitivity that have been presented in the literature, and argues that transitivity as a morphosyntactic phenomenon and effectiveness of an event as a semantic concept should be separated in discussions of transitivity, and also, like many other aspects of grammar, transitivity should be seen as a constructional phenomenon, and so each construction in a language needs to be examined separately, in natural contexts. An Appendix presents some general questions one can consider when analysing language data.
Dulong/Rawang is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken on both sides of the China/Myanmar (Burma) border just south and cast of Tibet. [...] In this chapter, I will be using data of the Mvtwang (Mvt River) dialect, which is considered the most central of those dialects in Myanmar and so has become something of a standard for writing and intergroup communication, though most of the phenomena we will be discussing are general to dialects in both China and Myanrnar. I will use the short form 'Rawang' in referring to this dialect.
This paper presents the analyses of transitivity and questions about transitivity in two languages (Rawang and Qiang) that have been described using very different definitions of transitivity, with a view to showing that each language must be analysed on its own terms, and so the criteria used for identifying transitivity, if it is to be identified at all, might be different between languages. In the case of these two languages it is at least partly due to the two languages differing in terms of the degree of systematicity of the marking, with the Rawang marking being more systematic.