Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (55)
- Part of a Book (21)
- Working Paper (7)
- Review (6)
- Preprint (3)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Book (1)
- Report (1)
Language
- German (44)
- English (31)
- Croatian (17)
- mis (3)
- Portuguese (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (96)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (96)
Keywords
- Deutsch (21)
- Kroatisch (12)
- Dialektologie (6)
- Lautwandel (6)
- Schweizerdeutsch (6)
- Sprachstatistik (6)
- Sprachwandel (6)
- Historische Sprachwissenschaft (5)
- Mittelhochdeutsch (5)
- Sprachgeschichte (5)
Institute
- Extern (16)
Gothic gen.pl. -e
(2007)
Elsewhere I have argued that the three Old Prussian catechisms reflect consecutive stages in the development of a moribund language (1998a, 1998b, 2001a). After first eliminating the orthographical differences between the three versions of parallel texts while maintaining the distinction between linguistic variants and then assigning separate phonemic interpretations to the three versions on the basis of the historical evidence I listed the following phonological differences between the three catechisms.
Docherty et alii have "noted that several sociolinguistic accounts have shown a sharp distinction between the social trajectories for glottal replacement as opposed to glottal reinforcement, which have normally been treated by phonologists as aspects of 'the same thing'. It may therefore not always be appropriate to treat the two phenomena as manifestations of a single process or as points on a single continuum (presumably along which speakers move through time). From the speaker’s point of view (as manifested by different patterns of speaker behaviour) they appear as independent phenomena" (1997: 307).
Eduard Hermann writes (1916: 147): "Darüber, daß Wills Übersetzung des Enchiridions ein ganz schauderhaftes Preußisch ist, herrscht eine Stimme. Nur darüber sind die Meinungen geteilt, ob Will ein Stümper war und nichts vom Preußischen verstand oder ob das Preußische seiner Zeit dermaßen entartet war, daß Kasus und Formen fast beliebig miteinander wechseln konnten." This is a splendid formulation of the problem. Hermann’s article should be compulsory reading for students of historical syntax. In search of a solution to this problem, I have applied the following procedure. First I have put together the minor catechisms with those parts of the Enchiridion which translate the same German text. Words which are missing in any of the three versions have been italicized. The result is shown below.
The publication of Mallory’s book (1989) has rendered much of what I had to say in the present contribution superfluous. The author presents a carefully argued and very well written account of a balanced view on almost every aspect of the problem. Against this background, I shall limit myself to a few points which have not received sufficient attention in the discussion. ...
Aramaic is not among the oldest Semitic languages in a strictly chronological sense, but among those languages which are still spoken today, it has the longest continuous written tradition. The existing written documents span a period of three millennia and thus enable us to study language history in a long-term perspective. It is very important, in this respect, that the latest stage of development of Aramaic, Neo-Aramaic, still exists in a multitude of spoken varieties which can be studied in vivo. We can thus describe the phonetics and phonology of the modern varieties with more precision than is possible for the older language stages, which in turn enables us to draw conclusions on diachronic sound change. Likewise, we can study morphology and syntax not only from recorded texts, but we also have recourse to native speakers in order to clarify doubtful points. Thus the latest stage of Aramaic casts a strong light back into the past. It is therefore most unfortunate that many Aramaicists and Syrologists show so little interest in this living heritage.
A correct evaluation of the Slavic evidence for the reconstruction of the Indo- European proto-language requires an extensive knowledge of a considerable body of data. While the segmental features of the Slavic material are generally of corroborative value only, the prosodic evidence is crucial for the reconstruction of PIE. phonology. Due to the complicated nature of Slavic historical accentology, this has come to be realized quite recently.1 As a result, much of the earlier literature has become obsolete to the extent that it is based upon an interpretation which does not take the multifarious accentual developments into account. I shall give one example.
Bern, bis ins 18. Jh. Zentrum der regionalen Großmacht, heute mit nicht ganz 130.000 Einwohnern die viertgrößte Stadt der Schweiz und seit 1848 die Hauptstadt der Schweiz. Auf Grund dieser Ausgangslage würde man erwarten, dass Bern wie andere Städte eine sprachliche Strahlungskraft in die unmittelbare Umgebung aufweist. Entgegen der allgemeinen Vorstellung zeigt sich jedoch in den Karten des Sprachatlas der deutschen Schweiz (SDS) kaum eine der für die Umgebung von Städten typischen sprachgeographische Verbreitungsbilder. So finden sich viele Isoglossen in unmittelbarer Nähe der Stadt Bern: trichter-, keil- oder gar kreisförmige Bündelungen von Isoglossen, die auf eine sprachliche Wirkung der Stadt hindeuten würde, lassen sich kaum nachweisen.
Die Sprachsituation der deutschen Schweiz, wo die Mundarten den großen Teil der gesprochenen Sprachrealität darstellen, bietet ein weites Feld für Erforschung der gesprochenen Sprache. Die starke Position der Mundarten und die weitgehend mündliche Überlieferung machen sie für die Sprachwandelforschung interessant. Nachdem die Erforschung von Sprachwandel lange auf der Rekonstruktion gesprochener Sprache aus Schriftzeugnissen beschränkt war, kann seit dem wissenschaftlich reflektierten Festhalten gesprochener Sprache in Transkripten und seit der Möglichkeit zur Tonarchivierung auf historische Zeugnisse gesprochener Sprache zurückgegriffen werden. So kann die primäre Sprachform berücksichtigt werden. Denn obwohl Lautwandel lange der zentrale Bereich der Sprachgeschichtsschreibung war und die Sprachgeschichtsschreibung weitgehend vom "Primat des Sprechens" (Sonderegger 1979, 11) ausgegangen war, musste sie sich lange mit Schriftzeugnissen abfinden, die nur Reflexe gesprochener Sprache darstellten.
Sociolinguistic research has shown that attitudes towards linguistic variants can distinguish different speech communities. The importance of attitudes for an explanation of linguistic change was examined and compared to traditional explanations by sociolinguistic and dialectologic variables. Therefore the dialect of Aarau was investigated, a small town situated between the two cities of Bern (80 km in the west) and Zürich (50 km in the east) in the German speaking part of Switzerland. Bern and Zürich both are centres of a larger dialect region, Aarau lies in the contact zone of these two dialects. Phonetic variables of the idiolect of 55 speakers were compared to historical data and related to their attitudes towards the neighbouring dialects. The findings so far show no significant correlation of attitudes and language change, but further research including morphology will refine the results. The inclusion of attitudes to explain linguistic change can complement the understanding of linguistic change, but it can not explain it.