Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Report (58) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (58)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (58)
Keywords
- Deutsch (4)
- Grammatik (3)
- Indogermanische Sprachen (3)
- Slawische Sprachen (3)
- Uralische Sprachen (3)
- Baltoslawische Sprachen (2)
- Bibliographie (2)
- Germanistische Linguistik (2)
- Inuktitut (2)
- Lexikologie (2)
Institute
- Neuere Philologien (2)
- Extern (1)
The distribution of linguistic structures in the world is the joint product of universal principles, inheritance from ancestor languages, language contact, social structures, and random fluctuation. This paper proposes a method for evaluating the relative significance of each factor — and in particular, of universal principles — via regression modeling: statistical evidence for universal principles is found if the odds for families to have skewed responses (e.g. all or most members have postnominal relative clauses) as opposed to having an opposite response skewing or no skewing at all, is significantly higher for some condition (e.g. VO order) than for another condition, independently of other factors.
It is often assumed that the goal of typology is to define the notion ‘possible human language’. This view, which I call the Universalist Typology view is shared, for example, by virtually all contributors to Bynon & Shibatani’s 1995 volume Approaches to Language Typology, and by Moravscik in her review of this volume in Linguistic Typology 1 (p.105). In the following I claim that this assumption is fundamentally mistaken. To clarify the theoretical status of what is meant by ‘possible human language’, I argue here for a distinction between typological theory (theoretical typology) and grammatical theory (theoretical syntax and theoretical morphology) as distinct subdisciplines of linguistics.
Languages vary in whether or not primary grammatical relations (PGRs) are sensitive to information from clause-level case or phrase structures. This variation correlates with a difference between verb agreement systems based on feature unification and systems based on feature composition. The choice between different PGR and agreement principles is found to be highly stable genetically and to characterize Indo-European as systematically different from Sino-Tibetan. Although the choice is partially similar to the Configurationality Parameter, it is shown that Indo-European languages of South Asia are nonconfigurational due to areal pressure but follow their European relatives in PGR and agreement principles.
Ever since Wilhelm von Humboldt’s (1836) pioneering study of Nahuatl, linguists have recurrently recognized that languages differ fundamentally in the syntactic weight they attribute to noun-phrases as the arguments of a verb. Currently, the most prominent attempts to turn this intuition into a precise hypothesis revolve around the notion of ‘configurationality’.
In Belhare (Sino-Tibetan, Nepal), consonant prothesis at morpheme boundaries and deletion of stem "augments" is found if either metrical or morphological parsing would violate the bimoraic trochee pattern that underlies the stress system of the language. This finding corroborates Dresher & Lahiri’s (1991) "Principle of Metrical Coherence" and provides new evidence for the cross-linguistic applicability of Crowhurst’s (1994) "Tautomorphemic Foot" constraint. The data also support a view of the Prosodic Hierarchy as weakly layered, allowing consonants to be directly dominated by the foot or word node if they are prothetic and do not therefore need feature licensing within the syllable canon.
In hindsight, the debate about presupposition following Frege’s discovery that the referential function of names and definite descriptions depended on the fulfillment of an existence and a uniqueness condition was curiously limited for a very long time. On the one hand, it was only in the 1960s that linguists began to take an interest and showed that presupposition was an allpervasive phenomenon far beyond this philosophers’ pet definite descriptions. And on the other hand, and this is our real concern, it is now only too obvious that the uniqueness condition is too restrictive to be applicable to the general case. An utterance of “The cat is on the mat” should not imply that there is only one cat and one mat in the whole world. The obvious move is to limit the uniqueness condition to some notion of utterance context.
Inuktitut : Affixliste
(2003)
Die Theorie des sprachlichen Lernens und Lehrens ist bis in die siebziger Jahre des 20. Jahrhunderts hinein eine "Meisterlehre" (Müller-Michaels 1980) gewesen. Große Vorbilder eines Volkes (z.B. Mose), Leiter philosophischer Schulen (z.B. Platon) oder Äbte von Klöstern (z.B. Augustinus) und schließlich staatlich geprüfte Oberstudiendirektoren (z.B. Ulshöfer) beschrieben den jüngeren Kollegen, was sich beim Lehren der Sprache über Jahrzehnte bewährt habe: wie man am besten den Sprachunterricht erteile (Müller 1922, Seidemann 1973, Ulshöfer 1968, Essen 1968). Mit der Etablierung der Sprachdidaktiken an den Universitäten ist das Konzept der "norm-setzenden Handlungswissenschaften" Müller-Michaels 1980, Ivo 1975) entwickelt worden. Der Forscher (nicht mehr als Meister der Praxis ausgewiesen) untersucht die Prozesse des sprachlichen Lehrens und Lernens, indem er im "Feld" des Praktikers Erhebungen anstellt, um anschließend die erhobenen Daten einer Hypothesenprüfung zu unterziehen. Als Handlungsfeld wird besonders die Schule berücksichtigt. Die Methoden der Forschung sind vorwiegend "quasi-experimentell". In der Nachfolge der Sprachtheorie Chomsky´s (Chomsky 1965) sind die experimentellen Ansätze zur Untersuchung des Spracherwerbs, der Spracherwerbsstörung und der betreffenden Interventionen entwickelt worden (de Villiers/ de Villiers 1970, Hörmann 1978). Ort der Untersuchung ist das Labor. Das Design dieser Sprachdidaktik (bzw. Psycholinguistik, Kognitionswissenschaften etc.) ist experimentell (z.B. Herrmann 2004). Alle drei Konzepte stehen sich in vielerlei Hinsicht antagonistisch gegenüber. Sie auseinander zu halten - und andererseits mit Gewinn aufeinander zu beziehen -, gehört zu den Basis-Fähigkeiten der linguosomatischen Berufe und ihrer zugrundeliegenden Theorie (Beispiel Sprachlehrberufe, Phoniatrie, Sprachheil-Sonderpädagogik, psychosomatische Sprachtherapien). Daher sind die signifikanten Gegensätze der drei Konzepte herauszuarbeiten und ihre widerstrebenden Konsequenzen aufeinander zu beziehen.