Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (1213)
- Part of a Book (784)
- Working Paper (254)
- Review (181)
- Conference Proceeding (166)
- Preprint (122)
- Book (108)
- Part of Periodical (64)
- Report (58)
- Doctoral Thesis (23)
Language
- English (1395)
- German (1054)
- Croatian (298)
- Portuguese (120)
- Turkish (43)
- Multiple languages (24)
- French (21)
- mis (16)
- Spanish (7)
- Polish (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2991) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (436)
- Syntax (151)
- Linguistik (126)
- Englisch (123)
- Semantik (112)
- Spracherwerb (96)
- Phonologie (85)
- Rezension (77)
- Kroatisch (68)
- Fremdsprachenlernen (67)
Institute
- Extern (438)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) Mannheim (113)
- Neuere Philologien (43)
- Sprachwissenschaften (43)
- Universitätsbibliothek (4)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (3)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Medizin (2)
- Präsidium (2)
- SFB 268 (2)
The aim of this contribution is to embed the question of an antinomy between "integral" vs. "partial typology", inscribed as the topic of this plenary session, into the comprehensive framework of the dimensional model of the research group on language universals and typology (UNITYP). In this introductory section I shall evoke some cardinal points in the theory of linguistic typology, as viewed "from outside", viz. on the basis of striking parallelisms with psychological typology. Section 2 will permit a brief look on the dimensional model of UNITYP. In section 3 I shall present an illustration of a typological treatment on the basis of one particular dimension. In section 4 I shall draw some conclusions with special reference to the "integral vs. partial" antinomy.
These notes grew out of my preoccupation with writing a grammar of a particular language, Cahuilla, which is spoken in Southern California and belongs to the Uto-Aztecan family. [...] The Introduction to the Grammar as a whole – of which two sections are reproduced here in a modified version – tries to integrate the synoptic views of the different chapters into a series of comprehensive statements. The statements cluster around two topics: 1. A presentation of Cahuilla as a type of language. 2. Remarks on writing a grammar.
Oppositeness, i.e. the relation between opposites or contraries or contradictories, has a fundamental role in human cognition. In the various domains of intellectual and psychological activity we find ordering schemas that are based, in one way or another, on the cognitive figure of oppositeness. It is therefore not surprising that the figure and its corresponding ordering schemas show their reflexes in the languages of the world. [...] We shall be dealing with oppositeness in the sense that a linguistically untrained native speaker, when asked what would be the opposite of 'long' can come up with some such answer as 'short', and likewise intuitively grasp the relation between 'man' and 'woman', 'corne' and 'go', 'up' and 'down', etc. Thinking that much of the vocabulary of a language is organized in such opposite pairs we must recognize that this is an important faculty, and we are curious to know how this is done, what are the underlying conceptual-cognitive structures and processes, and how they are encoded in the languages of the world. We shall leave out of consideration such oppositions as singular vs. plural. present vs. past, voiced vs. unvoiced, oppositions that the linguist states by means of a metalanguage which is itself derived from a concept of oppositeness as manifested by the examples which I gave earlier. Our approach will connect with earlier versions of the UNITYP framework. However, as a novel feature, and, hopefully, as an improvement, we shall apply some sort of a division of labor. We shall first try to reconstruct the conceptual-cognitive content of oppositeness and to keep it separate from the discussion of its reflexes in the individual languages. We shall find that a dimensional ordering of content in PARAMETERS and a continuum of TECHNIQUES is possible already on the conceptual-cognitive level. In order to keep it distinct from the level of linguistic encoding we shall use a separate terminology, graphically marked by capital 1etters.
The Stanford Project on Language Universals began its activities in October 1967 and brought them to an end in August 1976. Its directors were Joseph H. Greenberg and Charles A. Ferguson. The Cologne Project on Language Universals and Typology [with particular reference to functional aspects], abbreviated UNITYP, had its early beginnings in 1972, but deployed its full activities from 1976 onwards and is still operating. This writer, who is the principal investigator, had the privilege of collaborating with the Stanford Project during spring of 1976. […] One of the leading Greenbergian ideas is that of implicational generalizations, has been integrated as a fundamental principle in the construction of continua and of universal dimensions as proposed by UNITYP. It is hoped that the following considerations on numeral systems will be apt to bear witness to this situation. They would be unthinkable without Greenberg’s pioneering work on "Generalizations about numeral systems" (Greenberg 1978: 249 ff., henceforth referred to as Greenberg, NS). Further work on this domain and on other comparable domains almost inevitably leads one to the view that generalizations of the Greenberg type have a functional significance and that a dimensional framework is apt to bring this to the fore. This is the view on linguistic behaviour as being purposeful, and on language as a problem- solving device. The problem consists in the linguistic representation of cognitive-conceptual ideas. The solution is represented by the corresponding linguistic structures in their diversity and the task of the linguist consists in reconstructing the program and subprograms underlying the process of problem-solving. It is claimed that the construct of continua and of universal dimensions makes these programs intelligible.
I. Zum Problem der Possessivität im Cahuilla (Uto-Aztekisch, Süd-Kalifornien) -
Von "possessiv", ''Possessivität'' wird in den Grammatiken verschiedener Sprachen in mindestens zwei verschiedenen Zusammenhängen gesprochen: 1.) Im Zusammenhang mit den "Possessivpronomina" und mit "Genitiv", z. B. dt. 'Karls Vater', 'sein Tod', 'seine Verurteilung', 2.) Im Zusammenhang mit 'haben', 'gehören', 'besitzen'. Daß die beiden Zusammenhänge nicht koextensiv sind, zeigt sich etwa bei 'sein Tod', wo neben es kein *'er hat einen Tod' gibt. Ebenso ist neben 'Karls Vater' ein Satz wie *'Karl gehört der (oder: ein) Vater' abweichend, zumindest wenn es sich um den leiblichen Vater Karls handeln soll. Das zeigt sich auch, daß die von der TG lange geübte Praxis, die Genitiv-Syntagmen auf 'haben'-Syntagmen zurückzuführen, nicht den Tatsachen entspricht. In anderen indogermanischen Sprachen finden wir ähnliches wie im Deutschen. Wir wissen zwar, was "Possessivpronomina" qua morphologische Klasse sind; aber syntaktisch und erst recht semantisch ist das Phänomen ''Possessiv'' weitgehend ungeklärt.
[...]
Ich glaube nun in einer Sprache den Bereich der Probleme einigermaßen zu überschauen, die man traditionellerweise und ohne recht zu wissen wie, mit dem Terminus "possessiv" in Verbindung bringt. Die Sprache heißt CAHUILLA, wird im südlichen Kalifornien von wenigen Sprechern noch gesprochen und gehört zur Uto-Aztekischen Sprachfamilie.
II. Possessivität und Universalien -
In meinem ersten Vortrag bin ich davon ausgegangen, daß für eine gegebene Sprache bei guter Kenntnis derselben eine zunächst intuitive Erfassung eines Bereichs der Grammatik möglich ist, den man sodann durch eine Theorie und nachprüfbare Methoden schrittweise auf die Ebene des wissenschaftlichen Bewusstseins zu heben versucht. Es handelt sich um jenen Bereich, dessen Grundprinzipien semantischer Natur sind, an dem aber auch die Syntax einen wesentlichen Anteil hat. Wie man den Bereich nachher nennt, ist weniger wichtig; ich sehe kein Hindernis, den traditionellen Terminus "possessiv", "Possessivität" dafür zu verwenden. Auch heute, in dem zweiten Vortrag, in dem es zunächst vor allem ums Deutsche, dann aber um die Frage nach den sogenannten Universalien geht, will ich wieder davon ausgehen, daß es möglich ist, einen semanto-syntaktischen Bereich "Possessivität" intuitiv abzustecken. Ich will dafür zunächst einen prominenten Zeugen aufrufen, der das fürs Griechische getan hat: Aristoteles.
The basic question is whether POSSESSOR and POSSESSUM are on the same level as the roles of VALENCE, two additional roles as it were. My research on POSSESSION has shown (Seiler 1981:7 ff.) that this is not the case, that there is a difference in principle between POSSESSION and VALENCE. However, there are multiple interactions between the two domains, and these interactions shall constitute the object of the following inquiry. It is hoped that this will contribute to a better understanding both of POSSESSION and of VALENCE.
In my Cahuilla Grammar (Seiler 1977:276-282) and in a subsequent paper (Seiler 1980:229-236) I have drawn attention to the fact that many kin terms in this language, especially those that have a corresponding reciprocal term in the ascending direction – like niece or nephew in relation to aunt – occur in two expressions of quite different morphological shape. The following remarks are intended to furnish an explanation of this apparent duplicity.
The language of the Cahuillas shows two systems of expressions referring to kinship, which could be termed, respectively, as labeling-relational and as descriptive-establishing. […] Descriptive terms show two properties: 1. They are analysable into constituent elements so as to recognize the connection between the term and the proposition. 2. They are distinguishable from the proposition: a. by a special formal element […], in Cahuilla the absolutive suffix. b. by a narrowing or specialization in the meaning. A term which is not descriptive, i.e. which is not connected with a proposition, I shall call "label", "1abeling": It does not say anything about the object but is assigned to it just as a label is attached to a thing […].
Die Termini Possessivität und Possession, die wir synonym für einander verwenden wollen, sind vorwissenschaftlich. Ihr Inhalt hat in keinem der Modelle der synchronen Sprachbeschreibung eine befriedigende Präzisierung erfahren. Die Auffassungen darüber, was man in gewissen Sprachen als possessiv anzusehen hat, schwanken. Man hat sich, mit Recht, gefragt, ob man einem entsprechenden Begriff überhaupt einen Platz in der Beschreibung von Sprachen – und damit in der Grammatik – einräumen solle. […] So erwägenswert manches an dieser Einschätzung auch ist, so finde ich es anderseits doch bemerkenswert, daß sich die verschiedensten Linguisten bei der Beschreibung der verschiedensten Sprachen doch immer wieder veranlaßt sehen, solche Termini – und Begriffe – wie "possessiv", "Possession" einzuführen. […] Intuitiv denkt man bei dem Terminus "Possession", "possessiv" in Sprachen wie dem Deutschen an die Konstruktionen mit Genitiv oder Possessivpronomen einerseits 'Karls/sein Haus') und an Konstruktionen mit 'haben', 'gehören', 'besitzen' anderseits ('Karl hat ein Haus'). Es hat nicht an Versuchen gefehlt, das eine auf das andere zu reduzieren. Die orthodoxe TG hat lange genug behauptet, 'Karls Haus' liege ein 'Karl hat ein Haus' zugrunde. Daß sich das nicht verallgemeinern läßt, sieht man etwa an 'Karls Tod', wozu es kein *'Karl hat einen Tod' gibt. Die Hypothese, die ich hier vorlegen und begründen möchte besteht darin, daß beide Ausdrucksweisen, also Genitiv, Possessivpronomen einerseits und 'haben' etc. anderseits einander komplementieren und erst zusammen den Phänomenbereich der Possessivität konstruieren. Eine große Rolle spielt dabei der Unterschied zwischen sogenannten relationalen und nicht-relationalen Nomina. Solche schwierigen Fragen untersucht man einerseits am besten an seiner eigenen Muttersprache. Anderseits aber hoffe ich das hier Gefundene durch die Konfrontation mit den Verhältnissen in einer davon weit abliegenden Sprache, einer Indianersprache Süd-Kaliforniens, Cahuilla, noch plastischer hervortreten zu lassen. Das hier angewendete Beschreibungsmodell ist gemischt. Die zugrundeliegenden Strukturen sind so weit wie möglich als syntaktische dargestellt. Doch konnte ich nicht umhin, in solchen syntaktischen Strukturen gewisse semantische Entitäten unterzubringen. Das gilt insbesondere für die abstrakten oder "höheren" Verben APPLIES und EXIST. Sie haben einen direkten semantischen Wert.
It is my intention to make two major points in this paper: 1. The first has to do with finding a frame within which the modal expressions of one particular Ancient IE [Indoeuropean] language – I have chosen Classical Greek – can be best described. I shall try to point out that the regularities which we find in these expressions must depend on an underlying principle, represented by abstract structures. These structures are semanto-syntactic, which means that the semantic properties or bundles of properties are arranged not in a linear order but in a hierarchical order, analogous to a bracketing in a PS structure. The abstract structures we propose have, of course, a very tentative character. They can only be accepted as far as evidence for them can be furnished. 2. My second point has to do with the modal verb forms that were the object of the studies of most Indo-Europeanists. If in the innermost bracket of a semanto-syntactic structure two semantic properties or bundles of properties can be exchanged without any further change in the total structure, and if this change is correlated with a change in verbal mood forms and nothing else, then I think we are faced with a case where these forms can be said to have a meaning of their own. I shall also try to show how these meanings are to be understood as bundles of features rather than as unanalyzed terms. In my final remarks: I shall try to outline the bearing these views have on comparative IE linguistics.