Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (72)
- Working Paper (54)
- Article (13)
- Book (3)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Periodical (1)
- Preprint (1)
- Report (1)
- Review (1)
Language
- English (104)
- German (34)
- mis (3)
- French (2)
- Multiple languages (2)
- Portuguese (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (147)
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)
This paper deals with restitutive and repetitive 'wieder'. Proceeding from the assumption that adverbial adjuncts have base positions which reflect their semantic relations to the rest of the sentence, it is shown that repetitive 'wieder' belongs to the class of event adverbs minimally c-commanding the base positions of all arguments whereas restitutive 'wieder' has many properties in common with process adjuncts, minimally c-commanding the final verb.
Even if we can generate a logical form, principles of use may limit the ways in which we can use it. In this paper, I motivate one such principle of use, and explore its effects. Much of the discussion involves kinds of sentences that have received attention in the literature on "individual-level predicates".
The argument-modifier distinction is less clear in NPs than in VPs; nouns do not typically take arguments. The clearest cases of arguments in NPs are in certain kinds of nominalizations which retain some "verbal" properties (Grimshaw 1990). The status of apparent arguments of non-deverbal relational nouns like sister is more controversial.
Genitive constructions like 'John's teacher', 'team of John's' offer a challenging testing ground for the argument-modifier distinction in NPs, both in English and cross-linguistically. On the analyses of Partee (1983/97) and Barker (1995), the DP in a genitive phrase (i.e. 'John' in 'John's') is always an argument of some relation, but the relation does not always come from the head noun. On those "ambiguity" analyses, some genitives are argument-like and some are modifier-like. Recent proposals by Jensen and Vikner and by Borschev and Partee analyze all genitives as argument-like, a conclusion we are no longer sure of.
In this paper we explore a range of possible analyses: argument-only, modifier-only, and ambiguity analyses, and consider the kinds of semantic evidence that suggest that different analyses may be correct for different genitive or possessive constructions in different languages.
Ich möchte […] drei Beispiele für den produktiven Dialog zwischen Historischer Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachtypologie liefern: 1. Den phonologisch-typologischen Wandel des Deutschen von einer Silben- zu einer Wortsprache, 2. die frühnhd. 'Justierung' der Abfolge grammatischer Kategorien am Verb gemäß der universellen Relevanzskala, und 3. die Entwicklung unseres Höflichkeitssystems am Beispiel der Anredepronomen. Weder liefere ich Neues noch kann ich ins Detail gehen. Es geht hier nur darum, für die gegenseitige Wahrnehmung und Zusammenarbeit linguistischer Disziplinen zu werben.
Der Terminus "switch-reference" ist eine Schöpfung von W. Jacobson (1967). Er bezog sich auf ein Phänomen, das zunächst in den putativen Hokan-Sprachen Tonkawa, Washo und Kashaya (Southern Pomo) entdeckt worden war. Es wurde bald als areales Merkmal von Sprachen des Südwestens Nordamerikas erkannt. Es findet sich in allen Great-Basin-Sprachen sowie der westlichen Hälfte des Südwest-Phylums und in Teilen der Phyla Kalifornien, Plateau, Plains und Südost (Jacobson 1983:172). [...] Seit einigen Jahren bringt man diese Erscheinung funktional und terminologisch in Verbindung mit den sog. Medialverben der Papua-Sprachen […]. "Switch-reference" ist die oppositionelle explizite Signalisierung der Identitätsrelation zwischen dem Subjekt des Satzes, an dem die Markierung vorgenommen wird (oder dem sie unmittelbar folgt) und dem Subjekt eines kommenden Satzes (vorzugsweise des nächsten). Sie hat also kriterial eine antizipatorische Komponente. Sie tritt in verbfinalen Sprachen auf und wird deshalb meist durch Enklitika oder Suffixe verkörpert (quasi als Brücke zum folgenden Satz), die den markierten Satz subordinieren. Mit der Subjektidentität (die zwangsläufig auf die eine oder andere Weise mit den Kategorien Person und Numerus interagiert) gehen meist andere Bedeutungen einher, vorzugsweise interpropositionale. Die "switch-reference" hat logischerweise zwei Optionen: Disjunktheit, "different subject" (DS) , und Identität "same subject" (SS). "Oppositionelle Signalisierung" impliziert, daß eine Option gegenüber der anderen keinen grundlegenden Umbau der Satzstruktur erfordert. Davon unberührt bleibt die Tatsache, daß DS-Markierung merkmalhaft er ist. [...] Die Arbeit sollte sich ursprünglich auf Papua- und amerindische Sprachen erstrecken. Obwohl auch letztere ausgiebig untersucht wurden, kam die Darstellung nicht über die Verhältnisse in den Papua-Sprachen hinaus. Angesichts der Sprachenvielfalt scheint mir der Begriff Typologie im Titel noch gerechtfertigt. Ebenfalls keine Berücksichtigung fand die SV der südamerikanischen Sprachen, wofür die Untersuchungsgrundlage aber ohnehin dürftig gewesen wäre. Verwandte Phänomene in australischen, kaukasischen und afrikanischen Sprachen werden im Kapitel 8 lediglich gestreift.
Possessive constructions are grammatical constructions which contain two nominals and express that the referent of one of these nominals belongs to the other. The kind of relationship denoted by possessive constructions is not only that of ownership (1), as the term "possessive" might suggest, but also that of kinship (2), bodypart relationship (3), part/whole relationship (4) and similar relationships [...]. The following investigation will start with possessive constructions on phrase level, i.e. possessive phrases, and then deal with possessive constructions on clause level.
Ergativity in Samoan
(1985)
Most typological and language specific studies on so- called ergative languages are concerned with case marking patterns, particularly split ergativity, with the organization of syntactic relations as defined by syntactic operations such as coreferential deletion across coordinate conjunctions, Equi-NP-deletion and relativization , and with the notion of subject, but usually neglect the notion of valency, though the inherent relational properties of the verb , i. e. valency, play a fundamental role in the syntactic organization of sentences in ergative as well as in other languages . The following investigation of ergativity in Samoan aims to integrate the notion of valency into the description of semantic and syntactic relations and to outline the characteristic features of Samoan verbal clauses as far as they seem to be relevant to recent and still ongoing discussions on linguistic typology and syntactic theory. The main points of the definition of valency […] are: Valency is the property of the verb which determines the obligatory and optional number of its participants, their morphosyntactic form, their semantic class membership (e.g. ± animate, ± human) , and their semantic role (e.g. agent , patient , recipient). All semantic properties and morphosyntactic properties of participants not inherently given by the verb and therefore not predictable from the verb, are not a matter of valency. Valency is not a homogenous property of the verb, but consists of several exponents which show varying degress of relevance in different languages or different verb classes within a single language.
Rezension zu Elke Hentschel, Negation und Interrogation. Studien zur Universalität ihrer Funktion. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag 1998 (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 195, ix + 250 S., 112,00 DM, ISBN 3-484-31195-9)
This paper offers an extensive analysis of the reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European word-initial cluster *sk- in Proto-Slavic. It is argued that the regular reflex of this cluster is the Proto-Slavic *x-, but that *sk- was analogously re-introduced in a great number of cases under the influence of prefixed forms and cases where forms with and without the so-called "s-mobile" co-existed in Slavic. This conclusion is in accordance with the fact that *x- < *sk- is far more common in derivationally isolated words that do not occur with prefixes.
The present paper offers evidence that there are two variants of adverbial modification that differ with respect to the way in which a modifier is linked to the verb's eventuality argument. So-called external modifiers relate to the full eventuality, whereas internal modifiers relate to some integral part of it. The choice between external and internal modification is shown to be dependent on the modifier's syntactic base position. External modifiers are base-generated at the VP periphery, whereas internal modifiers are base generated at the V periphery. These observations are accounted for by a refined version of the standard Davidsonian approach to adverbial modification according to which modification is mediated by a free variable. In the case of external modification, the grammar takes responsibility for identifying the free variable with the verb's eventuality argument, whereas in the case of internal modification, a value for the free variable is determined by the conceptual system on the basis of contextually salient world knowledge.
Within the Davidsonian paradigm copula-predicative constructions are commonly assumed to involve a state argument. Its source is taken to be either the copula 'be' (cf. e.g. Bierwisch 1988) or the predicative (cf. the ongoing stage level/individual level debate). Yet, a critical examination of copula-predicative constructions in contexts that call for Davidsonian arguments (locative modifiers, manner adverbials, perception verbs, etc.) reveals that they do not behave as expected. In fact, the data examined here do not support the assumption that copula-predicative constructions are equipped with a Davidsonian argument nor is there any evidence for a grammatically reflected distinction between temporary and permanent properties. The present paper argues alternatively for a grammatical distinction between states like' sit', 'stand', 'sleep', 'wait', 'live' and statives like 'resemble', 'know', 'hate', 'cost' which is invoked by the presence or absence of a Davidsonian argument. Copula-predicative constructions are shown to belong uniformly to the class of statives. The acceptability differences of copula-predicative constructions in combination with locative modifiers are accounted for pragmatically on the basis of conversational implicatures.
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.
At the end of last year, I designed an inquiry about the present state of linguistic typology in the form of a questionnaire. It was an attempt to cover the whole field by formulating the questions which seemed most relevant to it. This questionnaire is reproduced, without modifications, following this preface. In the first days of this year, it was sent to 33 linguists who I know are working in the field. The purpose was to form, on the basis of responses received, a picture of convergences and divergences among trends of present-day linguistic typology. The idea was also to get an objective basis for my report on "The present state of linguistic typology", to be delivered at the XIII. International Congress of Linguistics at Tokyo, 1982.
Some conceptual and empirical issues in linguistic theory : an illustration with pronominal clitics
(2001)
I would like to discuss a few general conceptual issues in linguistic theory, and see how they bear on some empirical facts about pronominal clitics. In particular, I would like to show that the conception of linguistic theory, justified on independent grounds, limits the class of issues and possible explanations for grammatical properties of specific linguistic expressions. I argue that this is not simply a consequence of a specific conception of grammar, conceived of as a system of principles and rules governing language, but has non-trivial empirical ramifications. Pronominal clitics are a good case study, since their grammatical properties bear on a wide range of facts falling under the purview of principles of phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics.
On transitivity
(2011)
This paper critically discusses and contrasts some of the different conceptualisations of transitivity that have been presented in the literature, and argues that transitivity as a morphosyntactic phenomenon and effectiveness of an event as a semantic concept should be separated in discussions of transitivity, and also, like many other aspects of grammar, transitivity should be seen as a constructional phenomenon, and so each construction in a language needs to be examined separately, in natural contexts. An Appendix presents some general questions one can consider when analysing language data.
Dulong/Rawang is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken on both sides of the China/Myanmar (Burma) border just south and cast of Tibet. [...] In this chapter, I will be using data of the Mvtwang (Mvt River) dialect, which is considered the most central of those dialects in Myanmar and so has become something of a standard for writing and intergroup communication, though most of the phenomena we will be discussing are general to dialects in both China and Myanrnar. I will use the short form 'Rawang' in referring to this dialect.
Qiang
(2003)
Qiang is spoken in Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture in northwest Sichuan Province. China; it belongs to the Qiangic branch of Tibeto-Burman. There are two major Qiang dialects. Northern Qiang (spoken in Heishui County, and the Chibusu district of Mao County; roughly 70,000 speakers) and Southern Qiang (spoken in Li County, Wenchuun County, Mao County, and Songpan County; about 60,000) (Sun 1981a: 177-78), The dialect presented here is the Northern Qiang variety spoken in Ronghong Village, Yadu Township, Chibusu District, Mao County.
Dulong
(2003)
Dulong [...] is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in China, closely related to the Rawang language of Myanmar (Burma). The Dulong speakers mainly live in Gongshan Dulong and Nu Autonomous County in Yunnan, China, and belong to either what is known as the Dulong nationality (pop. 5816 according to the 1990 census), or to one part (roughly 6000 people) of the Nu nationality (those who live along the upper reaches of the Nu River). The exonym 'Dulong' (or 'Taron', or 'Trung') was given to this nationality because they mostly live in the valley of the Dulong (Taron/Trung) River. In the past, the Dulong River was known as the Kiu (Qiu) river, and the Dulong people were known as the Kiu (Qiu), Kiutze (Qiuzi), Kiupa, or Kiao. Dulong is usually talked about as having four dialects, based on areas where it is spoken: First Township, Third Township, Fourth Township, and Nujiang. In this chapter, we will be using data of the First Township dialect spoken in Gongshan county.
This paper presents the analyses of transitivity and questions about transitivity in two languages (Rawang and Qiang) that have been described using very different definitions of transitivity, with a view to showing that each language must be analysed on its own terms, and so the criteria used for identifying transitivity, if it is to be identified at all, might be different between languages. In the case of these two languages it is at least partly due to the two languages differing in terms of the degree of systematicity of the marking, with the Rawang marking being more systematic.
This paper is an overview of the motivations and methodology for doing empirical in situ fieldwork on languages. It suggests specific methods for carrying out fieldwork in a maximally empirical way.