Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
- 2000 (46)
- 2001 (15)
- 1999 (7)
- 2003 (7)
- 2004 (7)
- 1988 (5)
- 2006 (5)
- 2007 (5)
- 1976 (4)
- 1982 (4)
- 2008 (4)
- 1990 (3)
- 2010 (3)
- 2011 (3)
- 1977 (2)
- 1978 (2)
- 1980 (2)
- 1987 (2)
- 1989 (2)
- 1992 (2)
- 2002 (2)
- 2005 (2)
- 2012 (2)
- 2018 (2)
- 2023 (2)
- 1979 (1)
- 1981 (1)
- 1983 (1)
- 1984 (1)
- 1985 (1)
- 1986 (1)
- 1995 (1)
- 1997 (1)
- 2009 (1)
- 2015 (1)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (72)
- Working Paper (54)
- Article (13)
- Conference Proceeding (4)
- Book (3)
- Periodical (1)
- Preprint (1)
- Report (1)
- Review (1)
Language
- English (107)
- German (34)
- mis (3)
- French (2)
- Multiple languages (2)
- Portuguese (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (150)
Keywords
- Sprachtypologie (49)
- Kontrastive Linguistik (27)
- Linguistik (21)
- Syntax (18)
- Deutsch (17)
- Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft (16)
- Semantik (15)
- Phonologie (13)
- Sprachliche Universalien (13)
- Prädikat (12)
Institute
- Extern (2)
It is often assumed that the goal of typology is to define the notion ‘possible human language’. This view, which I call the Universalist Typology view is shared, for example, by virtually all contributors to Bynon & Shibatani’s 1995 volume Approaches to Language Typology, and by Moravscik in her review of this volume in Linguistic Typology 1 (p.105). In the following I claim that this assumption is fundamentally mistaken. To clarify the theoretical status of what is meant by ‘possible human language’, I argue here for a distinction between typological theory (theoretical typology) and grammatical theory (theoretical syntax and theoretical morphology) as distinct subdisciplines of linguistics.
This paper is more about presenting phenomena and questions related to the concept of transitivity in Tibeto-Burman languages that I hope will stimulate discussion, rather than presenting strong conclusions. Sections 2 and 3 present alternative analyses of transitivity and questions about transitivity in two Tibeto-Burman languages I have worked on. In Section 4 I discuss some general issues about transitivity.
Qiang
(2003)
Sino-Tibetan languages
(2006)
The Sino-Tibetan (ST) language family includes the Sinitic languages (what for political reasons are known as Chinese ‘dialects’) and the 200 to 300 Tibeto-Burman (TB) languages. Geographically it stretches from Northeast India, Burma, Bangladesh, and northern Thailand in the southeast, throughout the Tibetan plateau to the north, across most of China and up to the Korean border in the northeast, and down to Taiwan and Hainan Island in the southeast. The family has come to be the way it is because of multiple migrations, often into areas where other languages were spoken (LaPolla, 2001).
Language contact has become a major focus of inquiry in historical and typological linguistics in the last twenty years, spurred in a large part by the publication of Thomason & Kaufman (1988), which tried to make sense of a large amount of language contact data. They argued that there was a direct relationship between the degree or intensity of language contact and the amount and type of influence the contact would have on one or more of the languages involved. Essentially, the greater the degree of bilingualism, the greater the degree of contact influence (see also Thomason 2001); if the contact and bilingualism was minimal, then there might just be a few loanwords adapted to the borrowing language's phonology and grammatical system, but if the contact and bilingualism was of a greater degree there would be influence in the grammar and phonology of the affected language. As more linguists came to take language contact more seriously, they came to realize how common language contact phenomena are.
In his magnificent book on the language relations across Bering Strait (1998), Michael Fortescue does not consider Nivkh (Gilyak) to be a Uralo-Siberian language. Elsewhere I have argued that the Indo-European verbal system can be understood in terms of its Indo-Uralic origins (2001). All of these languages belong to Joseph Greenberg’s Eurasiatic macro-family (2000). In the following I intend to reconsider the grammatical evidence for including Nivkh into the Uralo-Siberian language family. The Indo-Uralic evidence is of particular importance because it guarantees a time depth which cannot otherwise be attained.
There is good reason to be ambivalent about the usefulness of general considerations in linguistic reconstruction. As a heuristic device, a theoretical framework can certainly be helpful, but the negative potential of aprioristic considerations must not be underestimated. E.g., there is a whole range of phenomena which receive a natural explanation when we assume that glottalization is ancient in Germanic. The methodological question is: why have scholars been reluctant to identify the vestjysk stød with the English glottalization as a historical reality which may have been inherited from the proto-language? The role of general linguistics is to provide an idea of what can be expected in linguistic development, not by theoretical reasoning but by inspection of what actually happens.