Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (7)
- Working Paper (4)
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (16)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (16)
Keywords
- Nomen (16) (remove)
Institute
Bei dieser Arbeit geht es darum, das Funktionieren der Nomen:Verb-Relationierung in ausgewählten Einzelsprachen Nordasiens darzustellen. Es sollen (a) die sprachlichen Kategorisierungen innerhalb des betrachteten Bereichs beschrieben und (b) die Variation bei der Kodifizierung untersucht werden. Drei Sprachen Nordasiens werden herangezogen: Wogulisch, Jurakisch und Jukagirisch. Das Wogulische (7700 Sprecher) ist eine ugrische Sprache; Wogulisch und Ostjakisch werden als obugrische Sprachen zusammengefasst und dem etwas entfernter verwandten Ungarischen gegenübergestellt. Das Wogulische lebt in Westsibirien zwischen Ural und Ob; es zerfällt in vier Dialektgruppen: Nordwogulisch (Sosva, obere Lozva), Südwestwogulisch (Pelymka), Tavda-Wogulisch und Südostwogulisch (Konda). Das Jurakische (oder Nenzische) ist eine samojedische Sprache. Es bildet mit dem Enzischen und dem Nganassanischen die nordsamojedische Gruppe; die nordsamojedische Gruppe steht als eine Untereinheit der samojedischen Sprachen dem Selkupischen einerseits und dem Kamassinischen andererseits gegenüber. Das Jurakische wird in einem weiten Gebiet im äußersten Norden der Sowjetunion von der Halbinsel Kanin im Westen bis zum Mündungsgebiet des Jenissej im Osten gesprochen. Es zerfällt in zwei deutlich voneinander geschiedene Dialektgruppen, das Tundrajurakische (etwa 27 000 Sprecher) und das Waldjurakische (etwa 1000 Sprecher). Das Jukagirische (600 Sprecher) ist lange als Isolat betrachtet worden, hat sich aber inzwischen als mit den finno-ugrischen und den samojedischen Sprachen genetisch verwandt herausgestellt (vgl. Collinder 1940 u. 1957, Tailleur 1959; Krejnovit 1982, S. 3 f.). Es wird in zwei Dialekten (Tundra- und Kolyma-Jukagirisch) im äußersten Nordosten Sibiriens gesprochen.
The indigenous languages of North America have played a critical role in discussions of the universality of part-of-speech distinctions. In this paper, we show that Oneida does not include a grammatical distinction between nouns and verbs. Rather, Oneida inflecting lexical items are subject to two cross-cutting semantic classifications, one that concerns the sort of entities they describe, the other the sort of semantic relation they include in their content. Labels such as ‘noun' and ‘verb' can still be used for cross-linguistic comparison, as the semantic partition of lexical items corresponds to canonical nouns and verbs according to morphologists and some typologists. But the meta-grammatical status of these labels is quite distinct from the status of corresponding labels in Indo-European languages like English.
Preposition-noun combinations (PNCs) are compositional and productive, but not fully regular. In school grammars and many theoretical approaches, PNCs are neglected, but they have recently been addressed in an HPSG analysis by Baldwin et al. (2006). After discussing some basic properties of PNCs, we show that statistical methods can be employed to prove that PNCs are indeed productive and compositional, which again implies that PNCs should receive a syntactic analysis. Such an analysis, however, is impeded by the limited regularity of the construction. We will point out why adding semantic conditions to syntactic schemata might be necessary but not sufficient and turn then to a framework which allows the derivation of syntactic (and semantic) generalizations from linguistic data without taking recourse to introspective judgments.
As has been shown in other Polynesian languages, in Tongan, adnominal elements can modify incorporated nouns in the noun incorporation construction. Two analysis are considered in this paper for understanding this construction within HPSG. The first, lexical sharing (Kim and Sells, this volume), views the verbs that include incorporated nouns as being single words corresponding to two syntactic atoms. However, this analysis makes incorrect predictions on the transitivity of incorporation clauses. A second analysis, extending Malouf (1999), views these words as verbs, but with some of the combinatorial properties of nouns. This offers both a better account of the data, and preserves the more restrictive theory of the morphology-syntax interface.
Children […] growing up with highly inflected languages such as Modern Greek will frequently hear different grammatical forms of a given lexeme used in different grammatical and semantic-pragmatic contexts. In spite of the fact that the Greek noun is not as highly inflected as the verb, acquisition of nominal inflection of this inflecting-fusional language is quite complex, comprising the three categories of case, number, and gender. As is usual in this type of language, the formation of case-number forms obeys different patterns that apply to largely arbitrary classes of nominal lexemes partially based on gender. Further, frequency of the occurrence of the three gender classes and case-number forms of nouns greatly differs in spoken Greek, regarding both the types and tokens. […] [A] child learning an inflecting-fusional language like Greek must construct different inflectional patterns depending not only on parts of speech but also on subclasses within a given part of speech, such as gender classes of nouns and inflectional classes within or (exceptionally) across genders. It is therefore to be expected that the early development of case and number distinctions will apply to specific nouns and subclasses of nouns rather than the totality of Greek nouns. The two main theoretical approaches of morphological development that will be discussed in the present paper are the usage-based approach and the pre- and protomorphology approach.
Specificity distinction
(2001)
This paper is concerned with semantic noun phrase typology, focusing on the question of how to draw fine-grained distinctions necessary for an accurate account of natural language phenomena. In the extensive literature on this topic, the most commonly encountered parameters of classification concern the semantic type of the denotation of the noun phrase, the familiarity or novelty of its referent, the quantificational/nonquantificational distinction (connected to the weak/strong dichotomy), as well as, more recently, the question of whether the noun phrase is choice-functional or not (see Reinhart 1997, Winter 1997, Kratzer 1998, Matthewson 1999). In the discussion that follows I will attempt to make the following general points: (i) phenomena involving the behavior of noun phrases both within and across languages point to the need of establishing further distinctions that are too fine-grained to be caught in the net of these typologies; (ii) some of the relevant distinctions can be captured in terms of conditions on assignment functions; (iii) distribution and scopal peculiarities of noun phrases may result from constraints they impose on the way variables they introduce are to be assigned values.
Section 2 reviews the typology of definite noun phrases introduced in Farkas 2000 and the way it provides support for the general points above. Section 3 examines some of the problems raised by recognizing the rich variety of 'indefinite' noun phrases found in natural language and by attempting to capture their distribution and interpretation. Common to the typologies discussed in the two sections is the issue of marking different types of variation in the interpretation of a noun phrase. In the light of this discussion, specificity turns out to be an epiphenomenon connected to a family of distinctions that are marked differently in different languages.
A singular countable noun in English normally requires a determiner and they should agree in number. However, there is a type of noun phrase, such as those thousand teachers, which does not conform to this generalisation. As a subtype of singular countable noun, thousand requires a determiner, but the determiner has number agreement with the head noun teachers. The standard HPSG treatment, in which the determiner requirement and the determiner-noun agreement are both represented in the SPR specifications of the head noun, cannot capture this special agreement pattern. Our analysis, in which the determiner requirement and the determiner-noun agreement are dissociated from each other, can provide a straightforward account of the data.
The present article is a crosslinguistic discussion of the distinction between a word class of nouns and a word class of verbs in the UNI TYP framework of the dimension of PARTICIPATION (for a first overall sketch of PARTICIPATION see Seiler 1984). According to this framework the noun/verb-distinction (henceforth N/V-D) must be regarded as a gradable, continuous phenomenon ranging from the stage of a clear-cut distinction with no overlap to almost a non-distinction. Although there is no question that most, if not all, languages do differentiate between nouns and verbs, it is also quite apparent that the languages do so to a different degree and by different means, and that it only makes sense to use the terms "noun" and "verb" in different languages when one actually has a common functional denominator in mind (see below). After a general introduction to the notion of a noun/verb-continuum (chapter 1) the reader will be presented with a survey of languages as diverse as German. English, Russian, Hebrew, Turkish, Salish. and Tongan (see chapter 2) in support of the continuum hypothesis. In chapter 3 the facts are coordinated in an overall pattern of regularities underlying the Increase or decrease of categorical restrictions between the respective word classes. Also, chapter 3 raises the issue to what degree a N/V-D can be considered a matter of certain lexemes or a matter of the morphosyntactic environment of certain lexical units. Lastly, we shall seek for an answer to the question why it is not a necessary requirement for languages to draw a sharp distinction between a word class of nouns and a word class of verbs.
Wasow (1977) argues that linguistic theory should recognize two qualitatively distinct types of rules: syntactic rules, which can affect more "superficial" grammatical function properties; and lexical rules, which affect deeper lexical semantic properties of lexical items. However, lexicalist theories of grammar have replaced syntactic rules with lexical rules leaving Wasow's dichotomy potentially unexplained. Our goal in this paper is to recapture Wasow's insight within a lexicalist framework such as HPSG. Building on Sag & Wasow's (1999) distinction between lexeme and word, we claim that there is a contrast between lexical rules that relate lexemes to lexemes (L-to-L rules) and lexical rules that relate words to words (W-to-W rules) and that these differences follow from the architecture of the grammar. In particular, we argue that syntactic function features (ARGST, VALENCE, etc.) are not defined for lexemes, while lexical semantic features (CONTENT) are. From this it follows that L-to-L rules can affect lexical semantic features, and not syntactic function features. In addition, since words are defined for syntactic function features, W-to-W rules can change them. In this paper, we support this hypothesis by examining certain differences between two types of Noun Incorporation construction, and their relation to other rules in the grammar. We argue that Compounding Noun Incorporation is an L-to-L type and that Classifier Noun Incorporation is a W-to-W type; we base our argument on the interaction of Noun Incorporation and Applicative Formation in the Paleo-Siberian language Chukchi and the isolate language Ainu.
Außerhalb der indoeuropäischen Sprachen [erfreut sich] [d]ie Kategorie „Adjektiv“ […] einer geringeren Verbreitung als man als Laie vermuten würde, und es zeigen sich in nicht-indoeuropäischen Sprachen von den europäischen Sprachen stark verschiedene Aufteilungen der Welt in Nomina und Verba. Eine bisher nicht beschriebene Verteilung von Konzepten auf Wortarten in der Sprache Guarani, welche hauptsächlich in Paraguay gesprochen wird, ist das Thema dieser Arbeit.