Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
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)
Der Begriff "Subjekt" ist etwa so alt wie die ersten europäischen Ansätze zur Sprachbeschreibung. [...] Mit zunehmender Erforschung außereuropäischer Sprachen in neuerer zeit verbreitete sich jedoch die Einsicht, daß verschiedene der von den traditionellen europäischen Grammatiken vergebenen Kategorien nicht für jede Sprache deskriptiv adäquat waren und deshalb aus dem Bereich der Sprachuniversalien im Sinne der für jede Sprache gültigen Kategorien zu eliminieren seien. Das "Subjekt" aber behauptete noch sehr lange Zeit seinen Platz unter den allgemeingültigen Kategorien der Sprachbeschreibung. Erst genauere Studien beispielsweise der Ergativsprachen, denen das "Subjekt" als deskriptive Kategorie nicht mehr gerecht zu werden schien, ließen Zweifel an der Universalität des "Subjekts" aufkommen [...]. Seit Mitte des vergangenen Jahrzehnts wurde das "Subjekt" zu einem der meistdiskutierten Themen der Linguistik, was in der Herausbildung der vier gängigen Subjektstheorien resultierte, die ab Kap. 3 im Detail behandelt werden sollen. [...]
Als Prüfstein der Anwendbarkeit der [...] Theorien und zum Versuch der generellen Beantwortung der Frage nach der Universalität des "Subjekts" wurde eine sowohl in genetischer wie auch in struktureller Hinsicht nicht-indogermanische Sprache gewählt, das Ayacucho-Quechua (AQ). Die strukturelle Divergenz des AQ vom "Standard Average European" eröffnet möglicherweise auch bezüglich der Suche nach einem universalen "Subjekt" neue Perspektiven.
Recent developments in typology which put the notions of linguistic function and operation into the focus of interest and establish them as the ultimate base on which languages are comparable prove fruitful for contrastive linguistics. The functional approach is illustrated in a contrastive analysis of Persian and German relative clauses. In a sketch of the theory of the relative clause, four grammatical functions to be fulfilled by relative constructions are deduced, and the two languages are compared with respect to the various ways in which they realize them. Learning problems can thus be predicted with greater confidence, be explained more satisfactorily, and be remedied more efficiently, because they are seen as learner's attempts to transfer, beside the underlying functions and operations, which the languages do have in common, the techniques of their realization, which they do not have in common.
Implikative Universalien, linguistische Prinzipien und Sprachtypologie / J.C.P. Auer, Wilfried Kuhn
(1977)
Wir wollen in diesem Aufsatz die Möglichkeiten typologischer Forschung prüfen, die sich aus Greenbergs Aufsatz "Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements" ergeben. Greenbergs primäres Interesse ist nicht typologisch, sondern an der Universalienforschung orientiert. Er ermittelt aus einem 'sample' von 30 Sprachen 45 implikative Universalien der allgemeinen Form V(x) [A(x) → B(x)], wobei A und B beliebige sprachliche Merkmale sind und über die Menge aller Sprachen x quantifiziert wird. Überdies versucht Greenberg die relativ große Zahl von implikativen Universalien unter eine kleine Zahl von sog. Prinzipien ('principles') zu subsummieren, die allgemeine Bauprinzipien von Sprachen darstellen sollen und so Erklärungscharakter für die empirisch gewonnenen Universalien haben. Typologie wird von Greenberg zunächst nur in einem klassifizierenden Sinn verstanden; die Verteilung der untersuchten Merkmale in der Stichprobe von 30 Sprachen klassifiziert diese in solche, in denen das Merkmal anzutreffen ist und solche, in denen es nicht anzutreffen ist. Im folgenden wird zu zeigen sein, daß darüber hinaus auch auf der Ebene der Universalien und der Ebene der Prinzipien typologische Ansätze möglich sind.
In my paper "Thesen zum Universalienprojekt" (1976) I mention two complementary procedures for discovering language universals: 1. The investigation of the dimensions and principles whose existence is necessitated by the communicative function of language; 2. The development of a formal language in which all syntactic rules are explicitly formulated and in which all syntactic categories are defined by their relation to a minimally necessary number of syntactic categories. Since the first procedure is treated in many of the other papers of this volume, I wish to discuss the role of formal methods in the research of language universals. As an example I want to take the dimensions of determination and show how expressions denoting concepts are modified and turned into reference identifying expressions. There is a general end a specific motivation for the introduction of formal methods into linguistics. The general motivation is to make statements in linguistics as exact and verifiable as they are in the natural sciences. The specific motivation is to make the grammars of various languages comparable by describing them with the same form of rules. The form has to be flexible enough to describe the phenomena of any possible natural language. All natural languages have in common that they may potentially express any meaning. The flexibility of the form of grammatical rules may therefore be attained, if syntactic rules are not isolated from the semantic function they express and syntactic classes are not defined merely by the relative position of their elements in the sentence, but also by the communicative function their elements fulfill in their combination with elements of other classes.
Montague (1974) has shown that this flexibility may be attained by using the language of algebra combined with categorial grammar. Algebraic systems have been developed by mathematicians to model any systems whose operations are definable. Montague does not merely use the tools of mathematics for describing the features of language, but regards syntax, semantics and pragmatics as branches of mathematics. One of the advantages of this approach is that we may apply the laws developed by mathematicians to the systems constructed by linguists for the description and explanation of natural language.
Different languages employ different morphosyntactic devices for expressing genericity. And, of course, they also make use of different morphosyntactic and semantic or pragmatic cues which may contribute to the interpretation of a sentence as generic rather than episodic. [...] We will advance the strong hypo thesis that it is a fundamental property of lexical elements in natural language that they are neutral with respect to different modes of reference or non-reference. That is, we reject the idea that a certain use of a lexical element, e.g. a use which allows reference to particular spatio-temporally bounded objects in the world, should be linguistically prior to all other possible uses, e.g. to generic and non-specific uses. From this it follows that we do not consider generic uses as derived from non-generic uses as it is occasionally assumed in the literature. Rather, we regard these two possibilities of use as equivalent alternative uses of lexical elements. The typological differences to be noted therefore concern the formal and semantic relationship of generic and non-generic uses to each other; they do not pertain to the question of whether lexical elements are predetermined for one of these two uses. Even supposing we found a language where generic uses are always zero-marked and identical to lexical sterns, we would still not assume that lexical elements in this language primarily have a generic use from which the non-generic uses are derived. (Incidentally, none of the languages examined, not even Vietnamese, meets this criterion.)
In the present monograph, we will deal with questions of lexical typology in the nominal domain. By the term "lexical typology in the nominal domain", we refer to crosslinguistic regularities in the interaction between (a) those areas of the lexicon whose elements are capable of being used in the construction of "referring phrases" or "terms" and (b) the grammatical patterns in which these elements are involved. In the traditional analyses of a language such as English, such phrases are called "nominal phrases". In the study of the lexical aspects of the relevant domain, however, we will not confine ourselves to the investigation of "nouns" and "pronouns" but intend to take into consideration all those parts of speech which systematically alternate with nouns, either as heads or as modifiers of nominal phrases. In particular, this holds true for adjectives both in English and in other Standard European Languages. It is well known that adjectives are often difficult to distinguish from nouns, or that elements with an overt adjectival marker are used interchangeably with nouns, especially in particular semantic fields such as those denoting MATERIALS or NATlONALlTIES. That is, throughout this work the expression "lexical typology in the nominal domain" should not be interpreted as "a typology of nouns", but, rather, as the cross-linguistic investigation of lexical areas constitutive for "referring phrases" irrespective of how the parts-of-speech system in a specific language is defined.
In the area of the Modern Greek verb, phenomena which consistently appear are headmarking, many potential slots before and/or after the verb root, noun and adverb incorporation, addition of adverbial elements by means of affixes, a large inventory of bound morphemes, verbal words as minimal sentences, etc. These features relate Modern Greek to polysynthesis. The main bulk of this paper is dedicated to the comparison of affixal and incorporation patterns between Modern Greek and the polysynthetic languages Abkhaz, Cayuga, Chukchi, Mohawk, and Nahuatl. Ultimately, a typological outlook for Modern Greek is proposed.
Die tschetschenische und die deutsche Sprache gehören bekanntlich zu unterschiedlichen Sprachfamilien. Die traditionelle morphologische Klassifikation zählt das Tschetschenische zu den agglutinierenden Sprachen. Dennoch zeigt das Tschetschenische viele gemeinsame Züge mit den Sprachen anderer genealogischer Strukturen, so zum Beispiel – unserer These nach – mit dem Deutschen auf dem Gebiet der Phonetik. Hinsichtlich der Morphologie und der Syntax gib es Ähnlichkeiten mit den slawischen Sprachen, vornehmlich dem Russischen. Die tschetschenischen Sprachforscher betonen aber, dass ihre Sprache unter den anderen kaukasischen, agglutinierenden Sprachen einen besonderen Platz einnimmt, weil man in ihr viele Merkmale der Flektierbarkeit beobachten kann, besonders bei der Deklination von Gattungsnamen, Adjektiven und Partizipien.
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.