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)
In meinem Vortrag möchte ich Ihnen einige Überlegungen zu Fragen der vergleichenden Flexionsmorphologie vortragen und dabei wiederum speziell zur Kasusmarkierung an Substantiven. Ich werde mich dabei besonders auf das Polnische beziehen – eine Sprache, deren Kasusbildungen teils Charakteristika des fusionierenden oder flektierenden Typus zeigen, teils aber eher dem agglutinierenden Typ nahe kommen. Diese Mischung stellt, wie ich zeigen möchte, eine besondere Herausforderung für die morphologische Kasusanalyse dar. Ich werde dies im ersten Abschnitt meines Beitrags erläutern. Im zweiten Abschnitt greife ich einige bekannte Beobachtungen zu Kasussynkretismen auf, die für eine Analyse des polnischen Systems nützlich sind. Im dritten Abschnitt gebe ich für einen Ausschnitt des polnischen Deklinationssystems eine detaillierte Analyse.
In morphological systems of the agglutinative type we sometimes encounter a nearly perfect one-to-one relation between form and function. Turkish inflectional morphology is, of course, the standard textbook example. Things seem to be quite different in systems of the flexive type. Declension in Contemporary Standard Russian (henceforth Russian, for short) may be cited as a typical example: We find, among other things, cumulative markers, “synonymous” endings (e.g., dative singular noun forms in -i, -e, or -u), and “homonymous” endings (e.g., -i, genitive, dative, and prepositional singular). True, some endings are more of an agglutinative nature, being bound to a specific case-number combination and applying across declensions, e.g., -am (dative plural, all nouns); and some cross the boundaries of word classes, e.g., -o, which serves as the nominative/accusative singular ending of neuter forms of pronouns (and adjectives) and as the nominative/accusative singular ending of (most) neuter nouns as well. Still, many observers have been struck by the impression that what we face here are rather uneconomic or even, so to speak, unnatural structures. But perhaps flexive systems are not as complicated as they seem. What seems to be uneconomic complexity may be, at least partially, an artifact of uneconomic descriptions.
How far can language-specific structures influence conceptualisation? After a period of time where the discussion of any ‘Whorfian’ effects tended to be considered of little scientific merit, the recent decade has seen a renewed interest in this question. In particular, studies have aimed to tease apart ‘thinking for speaking’ from general cognition (cf. Slobin 1996, Stutterheim & Nüse 2002) and have shown that language-specific differences can often be observed in verbalisation as well as in the preverbal preparation phase of speech production, rather than in non-linguistic tasks.
What role does language play in the development of numerical cognition? In the present paper I argue that the evolution of symbolic thinking (as a basis for language) laid the grounds for the emergence of a systematic concept of number. This concept is grounded in the notion of an infinite sequence and encompasses number assignments that can focus on cardinal aspects ("three pencils"), ordinal aspects ("the third runner"), and even nominal aspects ("bus #3"). I show that these number assignments are based on a specific association of relational structures, and that it is the human language faculty that provides a cognitive paradigm for such an association, suggesting that language played a pivotal role in the evolution of systematic numerical cognition.
I discuss the status of WH-words for interrogative interpretations, and show that the derivation of constituent questions evolves from a specific interplay of syntactic and semantic representations with pragmatics. I argue that WH-pronouns are not ‘interrogative’. Rather, they are underspecified elements; due to this underspecification, WH-words can form a constitutive part not only of interrogative, but also of exclamative and declarative clauses. WH-words introduce a variable of a particular conceptual domain into the semantic representation. Accordingly, they have to be specified for interpretation. Different WH-contexts give rise to different interpretations. In a cross-linguistic overview, I discuss the characteristic elements contributing to the derivation of interrogatives. I argue that specific particles or their phonologically empty counterparts in the head of CP contribute the interrogative aspect. The speech act of ‘asking’ is then carried out via an intonational contour that identifies a question. By default, this intonational contour operates on interrogative sentences; however, other sentence formats – in particular, those of declarative sentences – are possible as well. The distinction of (a) grammatical (syntactic, semantic and phonological) sentence formats for interrogative and declarative sentences, and (b) intonational contours serving the discrimination of speech acts like questions and assertions, can be related to psychological and neurological evidence.
Humans possess a number concept that differs from its predecessors in animal cognition in two crucial respects: (1) it is based on a numerical sequence whose elements are not confined to quantitative contexts, but can indicate cardinal/quantitative as well as ordinal and even nominal properties of empirical objects (e.g. ‘five buses’: cardinal; ‘the fifth bus’: ordinal; ‘the #5 bus’: nominal), and (2) it can involve recursion and, via recursion, discrete infinity. In contrast to that, the predecessors of numerical cognition that we find in animals and human infants rely on finite and iconic representations that are limited to cardinality and do not support a unified concept of number. In this paper, I argue that the way such a unified number concept could evolve in humans is via verbal sequences that are employed as numerical tools, that is, sequences of words whose elements are associated with empirical objects in number assignments. In particular, I show that a certain kind of number words, namely the counting sequences of natural languages, can be characterised as a central instance of verbal numerical tools. I describe a possible scenario for the emergence of such verbal numerical tools in human history that starts from iconic roots and that suggests that in a process of co-evolution, the gradual emergence of counting sequences and the development of an increasingly comprehensive number concept supported each other. On this account, it is language that opened the way for numerical cognition, suggesting that it is no accident that the same species that possesses the language faculty as a unique trait, should also be the one that developed a systematic concept of number.
Sprachvermögen und Zahlbegriff : zur Rolle der Sprache für die Entwicklung numerischer Kognition
(2004)
In welchem Zusammenhang stehen Sprache und Zahl als kognitive Domänen? Welche Rolle spielt das menschliche Sprachvermögen für die Entwicklung des Zahlbegriffs? In den letzten Jahrzehnten haben verschiedene Disziplinen aus dem Gebiet der Kognitionswissenschaft – darunter Psycholinguistik, Entwicklungspsychologie, Ethologie und kognitive Neurowissenschaft – wesentlich zu unserem Verständnis der Beziehung zwischen Sprache und numerischer Kognition beigetragen. Die unterschiedlichen Ergebnisse liefern Evidenz für eng verknüpfte ebenso wie für autonome Bereiche in den beiden Domänen.
I give a unified account of numeral classifiers as lexical items that are reduced to the function of individuation in cardinal counting constructions with transnumeral nouns. I argue that individuation is a lexical-semantic phenomenon that triggers a focus shift from a whole set to its individual elements, but does not affect the conceptual representation. The semantic reduction of numeral classifiers to individuation functions is, on the one hand, reflected by a morpho-syntactic reduction; numeral classifiers do not project to full NPs, but occur as headadjuncts in QPs. On the other hand, it leads to a loss of conceptual features. As a result, nouns that are used as numeral classifiers are conceptually divorced from their NP counterparts. They integrate the nominal concept not as part of their interpretation, but via agreement features that govern the distribution of nouns in classifierconstructions. I show that the selection of conceptual features relevant for the distribution of numeral classifiers and nouns is lexically, not conceptually governed, supporting a model that distinguishes lexical-semantic and conceptual aspects in the generation of meaning.
Gegenstand des vorliegenden Beitrags ist der Zusammenhang der beiden Bereiche Sprache und außersprachliches Begriffssystem: Wie sind sprachliche und konzeptuelle Module verknüpft, und wie lässt sich ihr Zusammenhang theoretisch erfassen? Ich skizziere zwei alternative Ansätze zur Modellierung dieser Schnittstelle: das „Zwei-Ebenen-Modell“ und das Modell der „Conceptual Semantics“. Vor dem Hintergrund der beiden Ansätze diskutiere ich die Notwendigkeit eines vom konzeptuellen unterschiedenen „semantischen“ Systems, das sprachliche Aspekte der Bedeutung erfasst. Ich entwickele auf dieser Basis ein Modell, in dem die semantische Ebene als integrierter Teil des konzeptuellen Systems CS definiert ist: Semantische Repräsentationen werden durch einen Filter über CS generiert; sie etablieren eine Schnittstellen-Ebene, die CSElemente sprachlichen Strukturen zugänglich macht. Das Modell, das als Elaboration des „Tripartite Parallel Architecture“-Modells (Jackendoff 1997) verstanden werden kann, differenziert sprachliche und nicht-sprachliche Bedeutungsaspekte innerhalb eines komplexen Moduls (“2 in 1”-Ansatz).