Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (24)
- Working Paper (6)
- Article (5)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (36) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (36) (remove)
Keywords
- Wortstellung (36) (remove)
Institute
'Je-desto'-Sätze scheinen in struktureller Hinsicht Einzelgänger zu sein. Das Ungewöhnliche ist, dass sie wie eine obligatorische Verb-dritt-Konstruktion daherkommen: An erster Stelle steht scheinbar der durch je eingeleitete Nebensatz im linken Außenfeld bzw. Vor-vor-Feld, dann folgt die desto-Konstituente, die das Vorfeld einnimmt, und dann an dritter Stelle das finite Verb des Matrixsatzes. Angesichts der Semantik der involvierten Konstituenten ist diese Strukturbeschreibung ungewöhnlich und widerspricht plausiblen Erwartungen. Der Aufsatz bietet eine Analyse, nach der der 'je'-Satz und die 'desto'-Konstituente zusammen eine komplexe Konstituente bilden, die eine einzige, ganz reguläre Einheit konstituiert, was bedeutet, dass der Gesamtsatz eine ziemlich reguläre Verb-zweit-Struktur ist.
Dieser Vortrag stellt Kriterien der Auswahl von deutsch-tschechischen und tschechisch-deutschen Teilkorpora für die Analyse der deutsch-tschechischen Wortstellungsunterschiede, einen Kommentar zur Analyse der Dependenzgrammatik und der Thema-Rhema-Gliederung und die Veröffentlichung einiger Erkenntnisse dieser Forschungsarbeit vor.
Die hier vorgelegte empirische Untersuchung der Fokuspartikeln im Georgischen zeichnet sich u.a. durch die sprach¬immanente Tatsache aus, dass die Fokusstrukturen im Georgischen mit expliziten Partikeln markiert werden können. Die in dieser Arbeit untersuchten Fokuspartikelgruppen ( ġa, c und c+ḳi) sind entsprechend den semantischen Implikationen der Restriktion, Addition und der Skalierung gegliedert worden.
Trotz gewisser Unterschiede im Einzelnen ergab sich folgendes gemeinsames Modell für die Stellungseinschränkungen in Relation zum Prädikatsverb:
• Durch Fokuspartikeln fokussierte Wörter stehen im Georgischen in der Regel unmittelbar vor dem Prädikatsverb.
• Die Skopi der Fokuspartikeln (wenn die fokusmarkierten Worte grammatische Köpfe der NPs sind) stehen im Georgischen in der Regel vor dem Prädikatsverb.
• Die nächstmögliche optimale Interpretationsposition für fokusmarkierte Wörter ist in der Regel die unmittelbare Verbnachstellung.
• Die nächstmögliche optimale Interpretationsposition der
Fokusgruppe ist in der Regel die unmittelbare Verbnachstellung.
Aufgrund der herausgearbeiteten Stellungseinschränkungen entwerfe ich das pragmatische Modell der informationsgliedernden Verbfinalität als Basisabfolge im georgischen Satz.
The papers in this volume were originally presented at the Workshop on Bantu Wh-questions, held at the Institut des Sciences de l’Homme, Université Lyon 2, on 25-26 March 2011, which was organized by the French-German cooperative project on the Phonology/Syntax Interface in Bantu Languages (BANTU PSYN). This project, which is funded by the ANR and the DFG, comprises three research teams, based in Berlin, Paris and Lyon. The Berlin team, at the ZAS, is: Laura Downing (project leader) and Kristina Riedel (post-doc). The Paris team, at the Laboratoire de phonétique et phonologie (LPP; UMR 7018), is: Annie Rialland (project leader), Cédric Patin (Maître de Conférences, STL, Université Lille 3), Jean-Marc Beltzung (post-doc), Martial Embanga Aborobongui (doctoral student), Fatima Hamlaoui (post-doc). The Lyon team, at the Dynamique du Langage (UMR 5596) is: Gérard Philippson (project leader) and Sophie Manus (Maître de Conférences, Université Lyon 2). These three research teams bring together the range of theoretical expertise necessary to investigate the phonology-syntax interface: intonation (Patin, Rialland), tonal phonology (Aborobongui, Downing, Manus, Patin, Philippson, Rialland), phonology-syntax interface (Downing, Patin) and formal syntax (Riedel, Hamlaoui). They also bring together a range of Bantu language expertise: Western Bantu (Aboronbongui, Rialland), Eastern Bantu (Manus, Patin, Philippson, Riedel), and Southern Bantu (Downing).
Introduction
(2011)
In spite of this long history, most work to date on the phonology-syntax interface in Bantu languages suffers from limitations, due to the range of expertise required: intonation, phonology, syntax. Quite generally, intonational studies on African languages are extremely rare. Most of the existing data has not been the subject of careful phonetic analysis, whether of the prosody of neutral sentences or of questions or other focus structures. There are important gaps in our knowledge of Bantu syntax which in turn limit our understanding of the phonology-syntax interface. Recent developments in syntactic theory have provided a new way of thinking about the type of syntactic information that phonology can refer to and have raised new questions: Do only syntactic constituent edges condition prosodic phrasing? Do larger domains such as syntactic phases, or even other factors, like argument and adjunct distinctions, play a role? Further, earlier studies looked at a limited range of syntactic constructions. Little research exists on the phonology of focus or of sentences with non-canonical word order in Bantu languages. Both the prosody and the syntax of complex sentences, questions and dislocations are understudied for Bantu languages. Our project aims to remedy these gaps in our knowledge by bringing together a research team with all the necessary expertise. Further, by undertaking the intonational, phonological and syntactic analysis of several languages we can investigate whether there is any correlation among differences in morphosyntactic and prosodic properties that might also explain differences in phrasing and intonation. It will also allow us to investigate whether there are cross-linguistically common prosodic patterns for particular morpho-syntactic structure.
Red surečenica
(2009)
Pitanje reda surečenica u posljedičnim rečenicama, tj. mogućnost njihova premetanja (obrtanja), jedno je od onih nerijetkih pitanja u hrvatskome jezikoslovlju koje se smatra riješenim, a da se nitko njime nije valjano i sustavno bavio. Jednodušno se i beziznimno naime smatra da je red surečenica u posljedičnim rečenicama (i red surečenica u nekim drugim zavisnosloženim rečenicama) glavna surečenica – zavisna surečenica stalan i neobratljiv. Nije međutim točna tvrdnja da zavisnosložene rečenice za razliku od nezavisnosloženih mogu premetati red surečenica i da to ne vrijedi samo za posljedične i neke druge rečenice. Naime u nekim tipovima posljedičnih i drugih rečenica, pokazuje se to u ovome radu, zavisna surečenica može prethoditi glavnoj, tj. njezine sastavnice mogu zamijeniti mjesta.
The collection of papers in this volume presents results of a collaborative project between the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, the Zentrum für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung (ZAS) in Berlin, and the University of Leiden. All three institutions have a strong interest in the linguistics of Bantu languages, and in 2003 decided to set up a network to compare results and to provide a platform for on-going discussion of different topics on which their research interests converged. The project received funding from the British Academy International Networks Programme, and from 2003 to 2006 seven meetings were held at the institutions involved under the title Bantu Grammar: Description and Theory, indicating the shared belief that current research in Bantu is best served by combining the description of new data with theoretically informed analysis. During the life-time of the network, and partly in conjunction with it, larger externally funded Bantu research projects have been set up at all institutions: projects on word-order and morphological marking and on phrasal phonology in Leiden, on pronominal reference, agreement and clitics in Romance and Bantu at SOAS, and on focus in Southern Bantu languages at ZAS. The papers in this volume provide a sampling of the work developed within the network and show, or so we think, how fruitful the sharing of ideas over the last three years has been. While the current British Academy-funded network is coming to an end in 2006, we hope that the cooperative structures we have established will continue to develop - and be expanded - in the future, providing many future opportunities to exchange findings and ideas about Bantu linguistics.
Introduction
(2006)
The papers in this volume reflect a number of broad themes which have emerged during the meetings of the project as particularly relevant for current Bantu linguistics. [...] The papers show that approaches to Bantu linguistics have also developed in new directions since this foundational work. For example, interaction of phonological phrasing with syntax and word order on the one hand, and with information structure on the other, is more prominent in the papers here than in earlier literature. Quite generally, the role of information structure for the understanding of Bantu syntax has become more important, in particular with respect to the expression of topic and focus, but also for the analysis of more central syntactic concerns such as questions and relative clauses. This, of course, relates to a wider development in linguistic theory to incorporate notions of topic and focus into core syntactic analysis, and it is not surprising that work on Bantu languages and on linguistic theory are closely related to each other in this respect. Another noteworthy development is the increasing interest in variation among Bantu languages which reflects the fact that more empirical evidence from more Bantu languages has become available over the last decade or so. The picture that emerges from this research is that morpho-syntactic variation in Bantu is rich and complex, and that there is strong potential to link this research to research on micro-variation in European (and other) languages, and to the study of morpho-syntactic variables, or parameters, more generally.
On describing word order
(2006)
One aspect that is always discussed in language descriptions, no matter how short they may be, is word order. Beginning with Greenberg 1963, it has been common to talk about word order using expressions such as "X is an SOV language", where "S" represents "subject", "0" represents "object", and "V" represents "verb". Statements such as this are based on an assumption of comparability, an assumption that all languages manifest the categories represented by "S", "0", and "V" (among others), and that word order in all languages can be described (and compared) using these categories.