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
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 human mind may produce prototypization within virtually any realm of cognition and behavior. A "comparative prototype-typology" might prove to be an interesting field of study – perhaps a new subfield of semiotics. This, however, would presuppose a clear view on the samenesses and differences of prototypization in these various fields. It seems realistic for the time being that the linguist first confine himself to describing prototypization within the realm of language proper. The literature on prototypes has steadily grown in the past ten years or so. I confine myself to mentioning the volume on Noun Classes and Categorization, edited by C. Craig (1986), which contains a wealth of factual information on the subject, along with some theoretical vistas. By and large, however, linguistic prototype research is still basically in a taxonomic stage - which, of course, represents the precondition for moving beyond. The procedure is largely per ostensionem, and by accumulating examples of prototypes. We still lack a comprehensive prototype theory. The following pages are intended, not to provide such, a theory, but to do the first steps in this direction. Section 2 will feature some elements of a functional theory of prototypes. They have been developed by this author within the frame of the UNITYP model of research on language universals and typology. Section 3 will bring a discussion of prototypization with regard to selected phenomena of a wide range of levels of analysis: Phonology, morphosyntax, speech acts, and the lexicon. Prototypization will finally be studied within one of the universal dimensions, that of APPREHENSION - the linguistic representation of the concepts of objects – as proposed by Seiler (1986).
Actually, the title should include intralinguistic variation along with the interlinguistic one. For variation within one and the same language is the thing which directly presents itself to the observation while it still remains to be demonstrated that phenomena in different languages can be regarded as variants to be assigned to one and the same invariant principle. There are two senses in which the terms of variant, variation are used in the following remarks: one, which has just been mentioned, concerns the assignment of variants to some definite invariant. The other implies the possibility of gradient transitions and opposes the notions of discreteness and of yes-or-no. I shall not try here to reconcile these two senses and I trust that what I intend to show will become intelligible nevertheless. Henri Delacroix (1924:126f) has reformulated an old hypothesis which seems worth exploring in connection with the search for language universals: "Une langue est une variation historique sur le grand thème humain du langage." It remains to be seen what "le grand thème" or rather "les grands thèmes" are about and what particular language-specific properties could be shown to be variants of one and the same theme. One such major theme which we shall now investigate is the interrelation between, on one side, a word or a sequence of words, and, on the other, a sentence. As this for us is not only a syntactic but also a semantic problem, we might rephrase the anti thesis as that between a term or sequence of terms and a proposition. Two alternative views on the nature of this interrelation seem conceivable: A. The interrelation is yes-or-no, i. e. an element or a string of elements either constitutes a term (sequence of terms) or a proposition. B. The interrelation is of gradient nature, i. e. we find intermediary stages. Both alternatives are appropriate, but under different circumstances.
Zur generativen Grammatik (im folgenden GG) gehört neben der Grammatik im engeren Sinn eine Lautlehre (generative Phonologie) und eine Bedeutungslehre (Semantik). Im Zentrum dieser Vorlesung jedoch steht die generative Grammatik i.e.S. Allgemeines Ziel der Vorlesung ist es, das Verständnis der Literatur über generative Grammatik zu erleichtern. Ihre Absicht besteht daher darin, eine reine Darstellung des Sprachmodells der generativen Grammatik zu geben; die Kritik muss dabei in den Hintergrund treten. Wo kritische Bemerkungen nötig scheinen, werden sie als solche vermerkt. Die erwähnten Termini 'generativ' und 'transformationell' sind hier vorläufig als Bezeichnungen für ein und dasselbe Modell zu nehmen, die nähere Bestimmung wird später gegeben. Unter 'Modell' wird eine bestimmte Konzeption der Sprache als eines Kommunikationssystems verstanden. Bezüglich der GG ist ein älteres und ein neueres Modell zu unterscheiden. Um die Wandlung vom älteren zum neueren Modell zu kennzeichnen, ist das ältere zuerst darzustellen und dann zur Entwicklung des neueren überzugehen.
Linguistic continua, their properties, and their interpretation – Hansjakob Seiler ; Skala und Kontinuum: Versuch einer Abgrenzung – Fritz Serzisko ; Der Skalenbegriff in der Linguistik mit einer Demonstration am Beispiel der deutschen Adverbien – Paul-Otto Samuelsdorff ; Kasusrollen im Tagalog: ein intrasprachliches Kontinuum der Kontrolle – Werner Drossard ; Zu einigen Skalen bei der Beschreibung sprachlicher Variation – Manfred Ostrowski Sprachliche Skalen im-typologischen Vergleich (erläutert am Beispiel der Dimension "Apprehension") – Ulrike Kölver
Why should we engage in language universals research and language typology? What do we want to explain? It is a fact that, although languages differ significantly and considerably. indeed, no one would deny, that they have something in common; how else could they be labelled 'language'? - There is obviously unity among them, no matter how vaguely felt and for what reasons: Scientific, practical, moral, etc. Neither diversity per se nor unity per se is what we want to explain. There is no reason whatsoever to consider either one of them as primary, and the other as derived. What we do want to explain is "equivalence in difference" – cf. our motto – which manifests itself, among others, in the translatability from one language to another, the learnability of any language, language change – which all presuppose that speakers intuitively find their way from diversity to unity. This is a highly salient property which deserves to be brought into our consciousness. Generally then, our basic goal is to explain the way in which language-specific facts are connected with a unitarian concept of language – "die Sprache" – "le langage".
Die nachstehenden Gedanken haben den Charakter einer vorläufigen Problemanalyse. Eine Formalisierung ist bei diesen Stand der Untersuchungen nicht intendiert. Es soll in wesentlichen der Frage nachgegangen werden, welchen Typus von "catènes" diejenigen Funktionen zuzuordnen sind, die als Verbalaspekt oder als Aspekt schlechthin in den Grammatiken verschiedener Sprachen vorgeführt werden. In generative Ausdrucksweise gekleidet lautet die Frage: Welche abstrakten Entitäten müssen in der Basiskomponente angesetzt werden und an welcher Stelle im PS Marker sind sie einzuführen, damit eine adäquate. d.h. dem internalisierten Wissen eines native speaker entsprechende Beschreibung des Phänomens "Aspekt" erzielt werden karnn? In den folgenden Abschnitten wird zuerst die Problemlage näher umrissen. Es wird eine Hypothese, wie sie unter anderem im Rahmen der generativen Grammatik vorgebracht wurde, diskutiert, und es wird ihr eine eigene Hypothese entgegengestellt. Empirisches Material zum Testen der Hypothese wird aus dem Bereich der Verbalaspekte des Neugriechischen beigebracht werden.
In this article, we analyse the use of modality markers in a German text taken from the Freiburger Korpus. We notice how the necessity of preserving face influences the speakers' choices of downgraders and upgraders, devices that determine the intensity of the speech acts and, therefore, the mood of the interaction.
New evidence is provided for a grammatical principle that singles out contrastive focus (Rooth 1996; Truckenbrodt 1995) and distinguishes it from discourse-new “informational” focus. Since the prosody of discourse-given constituents may also be distinguished from discourse-new, a three-way distinction in representation is motivated. It is assumed that an F-feature marks just contrastive focus (Jackendoff 1972, Rooth 1992), and that a G-feature marks discoursegiven constituents (Féry and Samek-Lodovici 2006), while discoursenew is unmarked. A crucial argument for G-marking comes from second occurrence focus (SOF) prosody, which arguably derives from a syntactic representation where SOF is both F-marked and G-marked. This analysis relies on a new G-Marking Condition specifying that a contrastive focus may be G-marked only if the focus semantic value of its scope is discourse-given, i.e. only if the contrast itself is given.