Linguistik
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (7)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (7)
Schlagworte
- Transitivität (7) (entfernen)
This paper presents the analyses of transitivity and questions about transitivity in two languages (Rawang and Qiang) that have been described using very different definitions of transitivity, with a view to showing that each language must be analysed on its own terms, and so the criteria used for identifying transitivity, if it is to be identified at all, might be different between languages. In the case of these two languages it is at least partly due to the two languages differing in terms of the degree of systematicity of the marking, with the Rawang marking being more systematic.
On transitivity
(2011)
This paper critically discusses and contrasts some of the different conceptualisations of transitivity that have been presented in the literature, and argues that transitivity as a morphosyntactic phenomenon and effectiveness of an event as a semantic concept should be separated in discussions of transitivity, and also, like many other aspects of grammar, transitivity should be seen as a constructional phenomenon, and so each construction in a language needs to be examined separately, in natural contexts. An Appendix presents some general questions one can consider when analysing language data.
The bulk of this paper deals with an analysis of the voice system of Tukang Besi, which, has both a complex verbal agreement system as well as the last fully developed (and obligatory) case marking system among Austronesian languages with an increasingly head-marking trend to the east (case marking of core constituents only becomes functional again in Vanuatu and the Solomons, and is well-developed in Polynesia). For that reason, as well as personal acquaintance with the language, it is a sensible starting point.
[V]oice in Malagasy is less like voice in English and more like wh-agreement, of the sort which Chung (1998) documents for Chamorro. In A' -extraction contexts in Chamorro, regular subject agreement […] is replaced by special morphology indicating whether the extracted element is a subject, object, or oblique […]. In Pearson (to appear) I suggested that Malagasy voice marking is a 'generalized' version of this type of marking: While in Chamorro wh-agreement is confined to questions, relative clauses, and the like, in Malagasy it appears in all clause types due to a requirement that the specifier of WhP be filled in every clause. [...]
In this paper I focus on the voice affixes themselves and propose an account of their distribution. Specifically, I argue that they are realizations of light verbs and Case-checking heads, which combine with the root through head-to-head movement. The distribution of the affixes is determined by the positions from which, and through which, the null operator […] moves on its way to the specifier of WhP. For example, the actor-topic prefix m- is treated as a nominative Casechecking head, which gets spelled out just in case the operator raises through its specifier. (My analysis is thus in the spirit of Guilfoyle, Hung, & Travis (1992), who also associate voice morphemes with Case licensing.)
It is the aim of this paper to evaluate the various types of sentential complementation available in terms of complement control cross-linguistically. I will propose a lexical classification of control classes on the basis of the instantiated subordination patterns. I want to focus on an important distinction, namely that of structural vs. inherent control. Structural control is found with predicates that select a clausal complement whose structure requires argument identification and thus 'induces' control. Infinitival complements are prototypical cases for this kind of control because in most languages infinitival complements can only 'survive' in structures of control or raising. The interesting question is which predicates license structural control and which cross-linguistic differences emerge between potential licensors. Inherent control is found with predicates that require control readings independent of the instantiated structure of sentential complementation (e.g. a directive predicate such as zwingen 'force'). In addition, I will recapitulate and add arguments for the dual lexical-syntactic nature of complement control.
This questionnaire focuses on control structures that are instantiated by predicates that take a state of affairs (SOA) argument. Noonan (1985) has called these predicates 'complement-taking predicates'; I will use the notion of SOAAtaking predicates (SOAA = state of affairs argument).
Prototypically, complement control is instantiated by certain classes of verbs; however, adjectives (be eager to) and nouns (e.g. nominalizations such as promise) may function as control predicates as well. 'Control' refers to the pattern of argument identification between an argument of the SOAA-taking predicate and an argument of the SOAA-head. In the literature the notion of 'equi deletion' or 'equi-NP deletion' has been used (following Rosenbaum 1967), which refers to structures in which an overt argument of the matrix predicate is identified with a covert argument of the embedded predicate. This questionnaire aims at a cross-linguistic application of the notion of control and thus uses a semantic definition of complement control. It extends the notion of control to other patterns of referential dependency between arguments of a SOAA-taking predicate and of the embedded predicate.
Mit der im Titel dieses Aufsatzes intendierten Gegenüberstellung eines statischen Phänomens (Transitivität) und eines dynamischen (TRANSITIVIERUNG) ergibt sich im Hinblick auf die Dimension der PARTIZIPATION das Postulat einer Interaktion einer indikativischer Sehweise mit einer prädikativischen. Der indikativische Aspekt der Transitivität ist darin begründet, daß auf der Basis von u.U. verschiedenen Definitionen von Transitivität, von Sprache zu Sprache in unterschiedlicher Weise, INITIANTEN-BETROFFENEN-Konfigurationen gesetzt werden, während sich der prädikativische Aspekt (die TRANSITIVIERUNG) darin manifestiert, daß bilaterale Beziehungen etabliert, d.h. INITIANTEN-BETROFFENEN-Relationen durch morphologischen Aufwand am Verb erzeugt werden, und dies zumeist auf der Basis eines intransitiven, meist patiensorientierten Verbs. Letztlich ergibt sich ein typologischer Zusammenhang zwischen der Setzung von Intransitivität/Transitivität (als Input) und der darauf operierenden TRANSITIVIERUNG, wie er von Nichols (1982, 1984a, 1984b) angedeutet ist: Sprachen, deren Verbbestände einen stärker "intransitiven" Charakter haben, werden mehr transitivieren und umgekehrt. Statistische Aussagen über den intransitiven oder transitiven Charakter von Verbbeständen verschiedener Sprachen können dabei auf zweierlei Weise erfolgen. Zum einen kann man die Verteilung von intransitiv vs. transitiv im Rahmen eines international standardisierten Grundwortschatzes ermitteln, zum anderen kann man INITIANTEN-BETROFFENEN-Konfigurationen in eine bestimmte Anzahl von Untergruppen zerlegen, indem man Rollenschemata angibt. Wir werden im folgenden diese an Tsunoda (1981) ausgerichtete Methode erläutern, aber auch an verschiedenen Stellen unserer Ausführungen "grundwortschatzbezogene" Anmerkungen hinzufügen. Im Endeffekt resultiert auf diese Weise bei einem Vergleich verschiedener Sprachen eine intersprachliche Skala, die es erlaubt, Sprachen zwischen den Nicholsschen Polen "fundamentally intransitive" und "fundamentally transitive" einzuordnen und dabei Beobachtungen zur Ausprägung intransitivierender und transitivierender Verfahren ermöglicht. Bei der Aufarbeitung des dazu nötigen Materials wird es einerseits um die Rektion der Verben (und damit auch um Kasusmarkiertheit), andererseits um die Derivation bzw. Nicht-Derivation ("Simplizität") bestimmter Gruppen von Verben gehen. Doch zunächst einige Bemerkungen zum Phänomen "Transitivität".