Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Working Paper (2)
- Review (1)
Language
- German (3)
- English (2)
- Portuguese (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Modus (6) (remove)
Institute
It is my intention to make two major points in this paper: 1. The first has to do with finding a frame within which the modal expressions of one particular Ancient IE [Indoeuropean] language – I have chosen Classical Greek – can be best described. I shall try to point out that the regularities which we find in these expressions must depend on an underlying principle, represented by abstract structures. These structures are semanto-syntactic, which means that the semantic properties or bundles of properties are arranged not in a linear order but in a hierarchical order, analogous to a bracketing in a PS structure. The abstract structures we propose have, of course, a very tentative character. They can only be accepted as far as evidence for them can be furnished. 2. My second point has to do with the modal verb forms that were the object of the studies of most Indo-Europeanists. If in the innermost bracket of a semanto-syntactic structure two semantic properties or bundles of properties can be exchanged without any further change in the total structure, and if this change is correlated with a change in verbal mood forms and nothing else, then I think we are faced with a case where these forms can be said to have a meaning of their own. I shall also try to show how these meanings are to be understood as bundles of features rather than as unanalyzed terms. In my final remarks: I shall try to outline the bearing these views have on comparative IE linguistics.
In the course of the ME period, HAVE began to encroach on territory previously held by BE. According to Rydén and Brorström (1987); Kytö (1997), this occurred especially in iterative and durational contexts, in the perfect infinitive and modal constructions. In Early Modern English (henceforth EModE), BE was increasingly restricted to the most common intransitives come and go, before disappearing entirely in the 18th and 19th centuries. This development raises a number of questions, both historical and theoretical. First, why did HAVE start spreading at the expense of BE in the first place? Second, why was the change conditioned by the factors mentioned by Rydén and Brorström (1987) and Kytö (1997)? Third, why did the change take on the order of 800 years to go to completion? Fourth, what implications does the change have for general theories of auxiliary selection? In this paper we’ll try to answer the first question by focusing on one the earliest clearly identifiable advance of HAVE onto BE territory – its first appearance with the verb come, which for a number of reasons is an ideal verb to focus on. First, come is by far the most common intransitive verb, so we get large enough numbers for statistical analysis. Second, clauses containing the past participle of come with a form of BE are unambiguous perfects: they cannot be passives, and they did not continue into modern English with a stative reading like he is gone. Third, and perhaps most importantly, come selected BE categorically in the early stages of English, so the first examples we find with HAVE are clear evidence for innovation. We will present evidence from a corpus study showing that the first spread of HAVE was due to a ban on auxiliary BE in certain types of counterfactual perfects, and will propose an account for that ban in terms of Iatridou’s (2000) Exclusion theory of counterfactuals.
In den folgenden Ausführungen wird es darum gehen, in einer den Erörterungen von Foley/van Valin (1984:208ff.) verwandten Weise Evidenz für eine bestimmte Reihenfolge der unter T/A/M zusammengefaßten Bereiche (Temporalität, Aspektualität und Modalität) zu erbringen. Wir teilen die Auffassung der beiden Autoren, daß die drei Bereiche als Operatoren über verschiedene Satz-Layer verstanden werden können, wobei die Foley/van Valinsche Konzeption besagt, daß Aspektualität mit dem Satznukleus (dem Prädikat), Modalität mit dem Core (dem Prädikat und den fundamentalen Partizipanten ACTOR und UNDERGOER) und schließlich Temporalität mit der Peripherie des Satzes (Prädikat, Core und "Umstandsangaben") interagiert. (Man vergleichedazu das Schema bei Foley/van Valin 1984:224). Im Zentrum unseres Interesses steht nun, die von den beiden Autoren postulierte Reihenfolge durch Beobachtungen zur Kasusmarkierung zu untermauern. Diese Sehweise unterscheidet sich von der der beiden amerikanischen Linguisten insofern, als sie vornehmlich die Sequenz der Morpheme im Bezug zum Verbstamm heranziehen, um eine Reihenfolge Stamm-A-M-T zu substantiieren. Bybee (1985) verfährt ähnlich, kommt aber aufgrund anderer Überlegungen und eines größeren SprachsampIes zu anderen Ergebnissen. Somit sind wir bemüht, mithilfe einer an einer Technik der PARTIZIPATION ausgerichteten Betrachtungsweise, der der Konzentration auf Phänomene der KASUSMARKIERUNG, zusätzliche Argumente für eine A-M-T-Sequenz zu sammeln.
Este artigo apresenta um estudo quantitativo do uso dos modos Konjunktiv e Indikativ no discurso indireto no alemão. Através da análise de um corpus de 400 textos online do gênero notícia de jornal, descrevem-se fatores que influenciam a escolha do modo do discurso indireto. Para a realização deste estudo partiu-se das seguintes hipóteses: a escolha do modo do discurso indireto pode ser influenciada pelo tipo de verbo do discurso citante (sagen/dizer, erklären/explicar), pela posição deste (antes ou depois do discurso citado), pelo tempo verbal do verbo finito do discurso citante, tipo de verbo do discurso citado (regular, irregular, auxiliar), se a oração subordinada é introduzida ou não por conjunção, grau de inserção da oração subordinada e distância entre discurso citante e discurso citado.
Bu çalışmada, Türkçedeki emir kipinin bir alt ulamı olan ve Almancada Jussiv terimiyle karşılanan 3. kişilere yönelik emir-istek1 biçimleri ve bunların Almancaya nasıl aktarılabileceği konulaştırılmaktadır. Bu amaçla Yaşar Kemal’in Kuşlar da Gittiromanındaki söz konusu emir-istek biçimleri aynı kitabın Almanca çevirisi Auch die Vögel sind fort’taki çevirileriyle karşılaştırılmaktadır. Karşılaştırmanın amacı çeviri eleştirisi değildir; yalnızca durum saptaması yapılmaktadır. Saptanan çeviri olanaklarının Alman dili eğitimi öğrencilerinde nasıl yansıma bulacağını görebilmek için bir de dar kapsamlı bir çeviri anketi uygulanmıştır. Türk dilinin bu dolaylı emir-istek için somut dilbilgisel bir ulam (Ali gelsin!) geliştirmişken, Almancada bire bir karşılaştırılabilir dilbilgisel bir eşdeğerlilik saptanmamıştır. Bu ulamın işlevi Almancada özellikle 3. kişi dolaylı anlatımla (Jeder kehre vor seiner eigenen Haustür!) ve yardımcı eylemlerle (Das Feuer soll von hier mitgenommen werden) karşılanmaktadır. Anlamsal bir ulam olan kipselliğin Türkçe ifadesindeki birçok örtüşmezlik, bu konunun Almanca öğretiminde daha çok dikkate alınması gerektiğini göstermiştir. Öğrencilerle yaptığımız çeviri uygulamasındaki diğer saptamamız, çevirilerdeki yetersizliğin sözlük kullanımındaki yetersizliğe dayandığıdır.