Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (65) (remove)
Language
- English (29)
- German (25)
- Croatian (6)
- Portuguese (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (65)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (65) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (21)
- Syntax (12)
- Sinotibetische Sprachen (6)
- Generative Transformationsgrammatik (5)
- Semantik (5)
- Lexikologie (4)
- Tibetobirmanische Sprachen (4)
- Chinesisch (3)
- Englisch (3)
- Kroatisch (3)
Institute
An important role in the coherence of texts is played by the distribution of information in the sentence. The present paper especially examines the beginning of sentences (topics). Which syntactic elements are most adequate to initiate a sentence, and which of their characteristics can be considered responsible for this? After a short review of the pertinent literature, we shall present grammatical, semantic and pragmatic factors that organize topicalization. The point of departure are the patterns of basic serialization as defined by the grammar. Deviations of these patterns can particularly be a result of the principle of known information. In addition to this constitutive principle, we can distinguish five regulative principles that lead to non-marked topicalizations (situation, empathy, iconicity, lengthening terms, text connection). In the closing sections, the positioning of phrasal accents and some special types of topics will be discussed. All the examples given are from modem German.
Ausgehend von der Engelschen Auffassung der Situativergänzungen wird hier an die Adverbialia mittels neu vorgeschlagener analytischer Verfahren herangegangen. Diese Studie leistet zum einen eine einheitliche Beschreibung bestimmter Verben - "stattfinden", "gebären", "sterben", "erschehen", "anfangen", "öffnen" und "beginnen" - und bietet zum anderen syntaktische, semantische, morphosyntaktische und kommunikative Unterscheidungsmittel für strittige Fälle bei der Unterscheidung zwischen adverbialen Ergänzungen und adverbialen Angaben. Das in diesem Aufsatz Dargestellte kann akzeptiert oder revidiert werden, aber der empirische Teil zeigt eindeutige Ergebnisse.
Syntactic negation and particularly the position of the negative particle 'nicht' are challenging themes not only for learners of German as a foreign language, but also for teachers and researchers of the grammar of German. This paper gives an overview of recent studies related to negation in Modern German. In its main part, it presents results of empirical research on the relationship between syntax and prosody in the field of negation.
Die Durchführung kontrastiver Untersuchungen setzt vor allem eine gründliche Beschreibung der zu vergleichenden Sprachen auf der Grundlage eines Grammatikmodells voraus. Kontrastive Arbeiten zum Sprachenpaar Deutsch/Türkisch, die diese Bedingung erfüllen, finden sich nur selten. Das dürfte auf die nur bedingt vergleichbaren Strukturen der besagten Sprachen zurückzuführen sein. Zwar existiert die semantische Kategorie Reflexivum im Deutschen und im Türkischen. In vielen Fällen ist es jedoch nicht möglich, die Existenz eines syntaktischen und semantischen Reflexivums in den beiden Sprachen nachzuweisen. Im folgenden Beitrag soll der Versuch unternommen werden, dieses Problem anhand eines Vergleichs der reflexiven Konstruktionen im Deutschen und im Türkischen zu verdeutlichen.
Die Durchführung kontrastiver Untersuchungen setzt vor allem eine gründliche Beschreibung der zu vergleichenden Sprachen auf der Grundlage eines Grammatikmodells voraus. Kontrastive Arbeiten zum Sprachenpaar Deutsch/Türkisch, die diese Bedingung erfüllen, finden sich nur selten. Das dürfte auf die nur bedingt vergleichbaren Strukturen der besagten Sprachen zurückzuführen sein. Zwar existiert die semantische Kategorie Reflexivum im Deutschen und im Türkischen. In vielen Fällen ist es jedoch nicht möglich, die Existenz eines syntaktischen und semantischen Reflexivums in den beiden Sprachen nachzuweisen. Im folgenden Beitrag soll der Versuch unternommen werden, dieses Problem anhand eines Vergleichs der reflexiven Konstruktionen im Deutschen und im Türkischen zu verdeutlichen.
U radu se analizira sintaktička funkcija participa u hrvatskome jeziku 15./16. st. jer su se otprilike u to vrijeme u sintaktičkom ustrojstvu (staro)hrvatskoga jezika događale vrlo krupne jezične promjene, koje su posljedica “departicipijalizacije” participa, tj. preobrazbe naslijeđenih participnih oblika u glagolske priloge.
U radu se prikazuje i analizira leksikografski status brojevnih riječi u Rječniku hrvatskoga kajkavskoga književnog jezika. Prilaže se popis brojevnih riječi obrađenih u rječniku, utvrđuje se u kojoj su mjeri u rječničkome članku zastupljeni elementi gramatičkoga opisa i navode li se oni dosljedno. Analiziraju se elementi definicije brojevnih riječi i njezina koherentnost.
U radu se daje pregled problema povezanih s normativnim statusom čestičnih/vezničkih skupina da li, je li i čestice/veznika li. Pokazuje se da postoji nekoliko pogrješaka povezanih s tumačenjem normativnog statusa i raspodjele tih skupina i te čestice te se provjerava normativno pravilo prema kojemu skupinu da li treba u standardnome jeziku zamijeniti česticom li (o tome se posve pogrješno često piše kao o zamjeni da li s je li, a skupina je li, s iznimkom skupine je li da koja ima funkciju dopunskoga pitanja, u standardnome jeziku ne postoji kao čestična/veznička skupina jer je njezin prvi član uvijek 3. lice prezenta glagola biti). Određuje se normativni status skupine je li, tj. pokazuje se da je ona u hrvatskome jeziku ili zastarjela ili da pripada razgovornomu stilu. Također se provjeravaju pravila u skladu s kojima se normativni status skupine da li u izravnome pitanju razlikuje od njezina statusa u neizravnome pitanju i prema kojima se skupina da li i u standardnome jeziku pojavljuje pri izricanju potvrdnosti te u alternativnim pitanjima. Donose se uvjeti zamjenjivosti skupina da li česticom/veznikom li, tj. izdvajaju se sintaktički konteksti u kojima ta zamjena nije potrebna ili nije moguća.
In attempting to reconstruct the morphosyntax of Proto-Sino-Tibetan, one of the most basic questions to be answered is what was the unmarked word order of the proto-language? Chinese, Bai, and Karen are verb-medial languages, while all of the Tibeto-Burman languages except for Bai and Karen have verb-final word order. lf these languages are all related, as we can assume from lexical correspondences, then either Chinese, Bai and Karen changed from verb-final to verb-medial word order, or the other Tibeto-Burman languages changed trom verb-medial to verb-final order. How we answer the question of which languages changed their word would then give us the answer to the question of word order in Proto-Sino-Tibetan.
Middle voice marking is very rarely recognized as such in the grammars written on Tibeto-Burman languages. It is often simply treated as a normal direct reflexive or as an intransitivizer. In order to draw the attention of scholars to the existence and function of middle voice marking in Tibeto-Burman languages, the present paper discusses the form and function of middle marking in several of these languages. We will first discuss key facts about middle marking in general, then discuss the individual Tibeto-Burman examples.
On describing word order
(2006)
One aspect that is always discussed in language descriptions, no matter how short they may be, is word order. Beginning with Greenberg 1963, it has been common to talk about word order using expressions such as "X is an SOV language", where "S" represents "subject", "0" represents "object", and "V" represents "verb". Statements such as this are based on an assumption of comparability, an assumption that all languages manifest the categories represented by "S", "0", and "V" (among others), and that word order in all languages can be described (and compared) using these categories.
Nominalization in Rawang
(2009)
This paper discusses the types of relative clause and noun complement structures found in the Rawang language, a Tibeto-Burman language of northern Myanmar, as well as their origin and uses, with data taken mainly from naturally occurring texts. Two types are preposed relative clauses, but in one the relative clause is nominalized, and in the other it is not. The non-nominalized form with a general head led to the development of nominalizing suffixes and one type of nominalized relative clause structure. As the nominalized form is a nominal itself, it can be postposed to the head in an appositional structure. There is also discussion of the Rawang structures in the context of Tibeto-Burman and the development of relative clause structures in the language family.
Many linguists in China and the West have talked about Chinese as a topic-comment language, that is, a language in which the structure of the clause takes the form of a topic, about which something is to be said, and a comment, which is what is said about the topic, rather than being a language with a subject-predicate structure like that of English. Y. R. Chao (1968), for example, said that all Chinese clauses have topic-comment structure and there are no exceptions.
The philosophy of language comes in three varieties. 1. The functionalist’s view: linguistic forms are instruments used to convey meaningful elements. This is the basis of European structuralism. 2. The formalist’s view: linguistic forms are abstract structures which can be filled with meaningful elements. This is the basis of generative grammar. 3. The parasitologist’s view: linguistic forms are vehicles for the reproduction of meaningful elements. This is the view which I advocated twelve years ago in a Festschrift (1985).