Refine
Year of publication
- 2003 (86) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (86) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (86)
Keywords
- Morphologie (13)
- Aspekt (10)
- Phonologie (9)
- Deutsch (8)
- Kindersprache (7)
- Literatur (5)
- Optimalitätstheorie (4)
- Rezeption (4)
- Englisch (3)
- Qiang-Sprache (3)
Institute
"Nichts komischer als eine Theorie des Komischen - wer zu diesen Worten auch nur andeutungsweise mit dem Kopf genickt hat, ist bereits gerichtet", schreibt Robert Gernhardt in Was gibts denn da zu lachen? Ähnliches gilt natürlich auch für eine performative Theorie des Komischen - allerdings mit einem entscheidenden Unterschied: Auf die Feststellung: "Nichts performativer als eine performative Theorie des Komischen", wird man vermutlich vergeblich auf andeutungsweises Kopfnicken warten. Statt dessen verständnisloses Kopfschütteln: Performativ? Muß das sein? Es muß.
Machen wir uns nichts vor. Auch wenn "Event" zum "PR-Wort der letzten Jahre" gekürt worden ist, wenn "Events auf die Besucher wie eine moderne Konsumdroge" wirken, wenn gar vom "Trend zum Event" gesprochen wird, von dem alle Bereiche der Gesellschaft längst so stark erfaßt sind, daß sich ihm nichts und niemand mehr entziehen kann – es bleibt dabei: Wann auch immer davon in Verbindung mit Kultur die Rede ist, da hat man es mit einem bösen Kampfbegriff zu tun. Mit "Eventisierung der Kultur" ist ihr steter Verfall gemeint. Und das Label "Eventkultur" gibt den Zustandsbegriff für eine Gesellschaft, die antrat, mit Kunst und Literatur die höchsten Höhen des Menschenmöglichen zu erreichen, und die nun ihr Bestes, Schönstes und Wahrstes bei einem Schaustellerwettbewerb auf dem Jahrmarkt verhökert. Event, das ist das "zur Sensation hoch inszenierte Nichtereignis, und die größte Kunst im Medienspiel ist das lauteste Krähen". Hier wird, so scheint es, "die Kunst zum bloßen Anlaß für den Konsum (...), zum Alibi", weil sie "in sonderbarer Perversion der alten Horazischen Ästhetik des 'utile cum dulci' und des 'prodesse et delectare', Zucker auf eine Sache streut, die sonst keinem mehr schmeckt." Und das passiert en masse: "Anschwellende Programmhefte, ausufernde Veranstaltungskalender, zunehmender Festivaltourismus, Boom der Multiplex-Kinos, Expo, Millenium Dome – was ist", so fragt sich da der kritische Betrachter mit Blick aufs Literarische, "was ist aus dem Erzählen geworden?" ...
Die Geltungssicherung von Texten durch die eigenhändige Unterschrift, welche einen abwesenden Körper ‚vergegenwärtigt’ in der Spur seiner (seit der Erfindung des Buchdrucks: einzigartigen) Bewegung, die Speicherung von symbolischem wie ökonomischem Kapital in Autographensammlungen (oder Autogrammkarten), Verfahren der konkreten-visuellen Poesie, die Praxis von Tätowierungen: Dies und anderes mehr zehrt noch immer in der einen oder anderen Weise von nicht-repräsentatorischen Dimensionen von Schrift. Zumindest setzt es solche Dimensionen der Unlesbarkeit doch voraus – wie dies auch noch die dumpfen Versuche der Auslöschung von Bedeutung durch Verbrennung von Büchern tun.
In this article we propose that there are two universal properties for phonological stop assibilations, namely (i) assibilations cannot be triggered by /i/ unless they are also triggered by /j/, and (ii) voiced stops cannot undergo assibilations unless voiceless ones do. The article presents typological evidence from assibilations in 45 languages supporting both (i) and (ii). It is argued that assibilations are to be captured in the Optimality Theoretic framework by ranking markedness constraints grounded in perception which penalize sequences like [ti] ahead of a faith constraint which militates against the change from /t/ to some sibilant sound. The occurring language types predicted by (i) and (ii) will be shown to involve permutations of the rankings between several different markedness constraints and the one faith constraint. The article demonstrates that there exist several logically possible assibilation types which are ruled out because they would involve illicit rankings.
The focus of the present paper is on the difference between English and German learners‘ use of perfectivity and imperfectivity. The latter is expressed by means of suffixation (suffix -va-). In contrast, perfectivity is encoded either by suffixation (-nou-) or by prefixation (twenty different prefixes that mostly modify not only aspectual but also lexical properties of the verb).
In the native Czech data set, there is no significant difference between the number of imperfectively and perfectively marked verb forms. In the English data, imperfectively and perfectively marked verb forms are equally represented as well. However, German learners use significantly more perfective forms than English learners and Czech natives. When encoding perfectivity in Czech, German learners prefer to use prefixes to suffixes. Overall, English learners in comparison to German learners encode more perfectives by means of suffixation than prefixation.
These results suggest that German learners of Czech focus on prefixes expressing aspectual and lexical modification of the verb, while English learners rather pay attention to the aspectual opposition between perfective and imperfective. In a more abstract way, the German learner group focuses on the operations carried out on the left side from the verb stem while the English learner group concentrates on the operations performed on the right side qfrom the verb stem.
This sensitivity can be to certain degree motivated by the linguistic devices of the corresponding source languages: English learners of Czech use imperfectives mainly because English has marked fully grammatical form for the expression of imperfective aspect – the progressive -ing form. German learners, on the other hand, pay in Czech more attention to the prefixes, which like in German modify the lexical meaning of the verb. In this manner, Czech prefixes used for perfectivization function similar to the German verbal prefixes (such as ab-, ver-) modifying Aktionsart.
In this paper we focus on the similarities tying together the second segment of an onset cluster and a singleton coda segment. We offer a proposal based on Baertsch (2002) accounting for this similarity and show how it captures a number of observations which have defied previous explanation. In accounting for the similarity of patterning between the second member of an onset and a coda consonant, we propose to augment Prince & Smolensky's (P&S, 1993/2002) Margin Hierarchy so as to distinguish between structural positions that prefer low sonority and those that prefer high sonority. P&S's Margin Hierarchy, which gives preference to segments of low sonority, applies to singleton onsets; this is our M1 hierarchy. Our proposed M2 hierarchy applies both to the second member of an onset and to a singleton coda. The M2 hierarchy differs from the M1 hierarchy in giving preference to consonants of high sonority. Splitting the Margin Hierarchy into the M1 and M2 hierarchies allows us to explain typological, phonotactic, and acquisitional observations that have defied previous explanation. In Section 2 of this paper, we briefly provide background on the links that tie together the second member of an onset and a singleton coda. In Section 3, we review P&S's Margin Hierarchy, showing that it becomes problematic when extended to coda consonants. We then offer our proposal for a split margin hierarchy. Section 4 extends the split margin approach to complex onsets. We then show how it is able to account for various typological, phonotactic, and acquisitional observations. In Section 5, we will conclude the paper by briefly sketching how the split margin approach enables us to analyze syllable contact phenomena without requiring a specific syllable contact constraint (or additional hierarchy) or reference to an external sonority scale.
1. The functionalist’s view: linguistic forms are instruments used to convey meaningful elements. This is the basis of European structuralism. 2. The formalist’s view: linguistic forms are abstract structures which can be filled with meaningful elements. This is the basis of generative grammar. 3. The parasitologist’s view: linguistic forms are vehicles for the reproduction of meaningful elements. This is the view which I advocated twenty years ago in the Festschrift for Werner Winter’s 60th birthday (1985). Here I intend to discuss the evolutionary origin and the physiological nature of the linguistic parasite. My theory of language is wholly consistent with Gerald Edelman’s theory of neuronal group selection.
One of the most important insights of Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993) is that phonological processes can be reduced to the interaction between faithfulness and universal markedness principles. In the most constrained version of the theory, all phonological processes should be thus reducible. This hypothesis is tested by alternations that appear to be phonological but in which universal markedness principles appear to play no role. If we are to pursue the claim that all phonological processes depend on the interaction of faithfulness and markedness, then processes that are not dependent on markedness must lie outside phonology. In this paper I will examine a group of such processes, the initial consonant mutations of the Celtic languages, and argue that they belong entirely to the morphology of the languages, not the phonology.
In this paper we provide an account of the historical development of Polish and Russian sibilants. The arguments provided here are of theoretical interest because they show that (i) certain allophonic rules are driven by the need to keep contrasts perceptually distinct, (ii) (unconditioned) sound changes result from needs of perceptual distinctiveness, and (iii) perceptual distinctiveness can be extended to a class of consonants, i.e. the sibilants. The analysis is cast within Dispersion Theory by providing phonetic and typological data supporting the perceptual distinctiveness claims we make.