Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (101)
- Article (38)
- Conference Proceeding (23)
- Working Paper (23)
- Report (7)
- Preprint (6)
- Book (3)
- Review (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (155)
- German (40)
- Croatian (5)
- Portuguese (3)
- Turkish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (204)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (204)
Keywords
- Informationsstruktur (37)
- Syntax (37)
- Deutsch (34)
- Generative Transformationsgrammatik (31)
- Grammatik (17)
- Semantik (17)
- Englisch (11)
- Grammatiktheorie (11)
- Russisch (11)
- Linguistik (10)
Institute
Simplicity as a methodological orientation applies to linguistic theory just as to any other field of research: ‘Occam’s razor’ is the label for the basic heuristic maxim according to which an adequate analysis must ultimately be reduced to indispensible specifications. In this sense, conceptual economy has been a strict and stimulating guideline in the development of Generative Grammar from the very beginning. Halle’s (1959) argument discarding the level of taxonomic phonemics in order to unify two otherwise separate phonological processes is an early characteristic example; a more general notion is that of an evaluation metric introduced in Chomsky (1957, 1975), which relates the relative simplicity of alternative linguistic descriptions systematically to the quest for explanatory adequacy of the theory underlying the descriptions to be evaluated. Further proposals along these lines include the theory of markedness developed in Chomsky and Halle (1968), Kean (1975, 1981), and others, the notion of underspecification proposed e.g. in Archangeli (1984), Farkas (1990), the concept of default values and related notions. An important step promoting this general orientation was the idea of Principles and Parameters developed in Chomsky (1981, 1986), which reduced the notion of language particular rule systems to universal principles, subject merely to parametrization with restricted options, largely related to properties of particular lexical items. On this account, the notion of a simplicity metric is to be dispensed with, as competing analyses of relevant data are now supposed to be essentially excluded by the restrictive system of principles.
Generative grammar
(2001)
Generative Grammar is the label of the most influential research program in linguistics and related fields in the second half of the 20. century. Initiated by a short book, Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structures (1957), it became one of the driving forces among the disciplines jointly called the cognitive sciences. The term generative grammar refers to an explicit, formal characterization of the (largely implicit) knowledge determining the formal aspect of all kinds of language behavior. The program had a strong mentalist orientation right from the beginning, documented e.g. in a fundamental critique of Skinner's Verbal behavior (1957) by Chomsky (1959), arguing that behaviorist stimulus-response-theories could in no way account for the complexities of ordinary language use. The "Generative Enterprise", as the program was called in 1982, went through a number of stages, each of which was accompanied by discussions of specific problems and consequences within the narrower domain of linguistics as well as the wider range of related fields, such as ontogenetic development, psychology of language use, or biological evolution. Four stages of the Generative Enterprise can be marked off for expository purposes.
Traditionally, the term "grammatical relation" (GR) refers to the morphosyntactic properties that relate an argument to a clause, as, for example, its subject or its object. Alternative terms are "syntactic function" or "syntactic role", and they highlight the fact that GRs are defined by the way in which arguments are integrated syntactically into a clause, i.e. by functioning as subject, object etc. Whatever terminology one prefers, what is crucial about the traditional notion of GRs is (a) that they are identified by syntactic properties, and (b) that they relate an argument to the clause.
Languages vary in whether or not primary grammatical relations (PGRs) are sensitive to information from clause-level case or phrase structures. This variation correlates with a difference between verb agreement systems based on feature unification and systems based on feature composition. The choice between different PGR and agreement principles is found to be highly stable genetically and to characterize Indo-European as systematically different from Sino-Tibetan. Although the choice is partially similar to the Configurationality Parameter, it is shown that Indo-European languages of South Asia are nonconfigurational due to areal pressure but follow their European relatives in PGR and agreement principles.
Ever since Wilhelm von Humboldt’s (1836) pioneering study of Nahuatl, linguists have recurrently recognized that languages differ fundamentally in the syntactic weight they attribute to noun-phrases as the arguments of a verb. Currently, the most prominent attempts to turn this intuition into a precise hypothesis revolve around the notion of ‘configurationality’.
In many languages, clauses can be subordinated by means of case markers. For Bodic languages, a branch of Sino-Tibetan, Genetti (1986) has shown that the meaning of case markers on clauses is in most instances a natural extension of their function on nouns. A dative, for example, which marks a referential goal with a noun, signals a situational goal, i.e., a purpose, when used on a clause. Among the case markers recruited for subordination, we not only get relatively concrete cases like datives, comitatives and various types of locatives, but also core argument relators such as ergatives and accusatives. In this paper, I focus on ergative markers in one subgroup of Bodic, viz. in Kiranti languages spoken in Eastern Nepal, especially in Belhare.
In the late seventies, Bernard Comrie was one of the first linguists to explore the effects of the referential hierarchy (RH) on the distribution of grammatical relations (GRs). The referential hierarchy is also known in the literature as the animacy, empathy or indexibability hierarchy and ranks speech act participants (i.e. first and second person) above third persons, animates above inanimates, or more topical referents above less topical referents. Depending on the language, the hierarchy is sometimes extended by analogy to rankings of possessors above possessees, singulars above plurals, or other notions. In his 1981 textbook, Comrie analyzed RH effects as explaining (a) differential case (or adposition) marking of transitive subject ("A") noun phrases in low RH positions (e.g. inanimate or third person) and of object ("P") noun phrases in high RH positions (e.g. animate or first or second person), and (b) hierarchical verb agreement coupled with a direct vs. inverse distinction, as in Algonquian (Comrie 1981: Chapter 6).
Negation und Modalität
(2009)
Der vorliegende Artikel behandelt die Problematik der Negation im Rahmen der Modalität. Die Aufmerksamkeit richtet sich auf formale und inhaltliche Aspekte der Negation auf dem modalen Feld. Nach dem Vergleich der Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten der Negation im Deutschen und Slowakischen werden die Auswirkungen der Negation auf die semantische Ebene der Modalverben (weiter nur MV) in beiden Sprachen konkret behandelt. Es gibt mehrere Verfahren zur Skopusfestlegung des Negators. Im Artikel wird ein Modell präsentiert, das die Diskrepanz zwischen der oberflächlichen und tatsächlichen Negation in beiden Sprachen zeigt.
Causative, which is analyzed in the context of voice, differs widely in Turkish and German languages. A causative can be obtained nearly from each verb in Turkish language while this category is not productive in German Language. Like prefixes, which are of great importance in German language, the causative has the same significance in Turkish language. Causatives can be divided into three: a) lexical causative, causative existing in words' own meaning; for instance, there exists such a relationship between the words "slide" and "fall"; b) morphological causative consists of morphemes (öl-dür-t-mek); c) whereas, the context is important for the operant causative. When we say “It smells gas in here’ it may have been intended to open a window and we can make it done. There is a direct connection between the causative and causality. Because, in causative instead of doing something directly, it may be caused to be done or occurred. The notion of causative in German has been reviewed in the semantic context at a low degree. This is because of the fact that, morphological causative verbs are fewer and new causative voices can't be formed. However, this issue has been handled in a very detailed manner especially at morphological level in Turkish language. There is even fine detail under the title causative itself. The most important characteristic of causative is to change the combination value of the verbs. However, the relation between causative and passive is just the opposite of this and asymmetric. Structures having semantic similarities with causatives and named as Funktionsverbgefüge (put into practice = apply) in German exist. Reciprocal voices and reflexive voices, the most important voices of Turkish language, generally allow the formation of causative verb.
Bu çalışmada, Türkçedeki emir kipinin bir alt ulamı olan ve Almancada Jussiv terimiyle karşılanan 3. kişilere yönelik emir-istek1 biçimleri ve bunların Almancaya nasıl aktarılabileceği konulaştırılmaktadır. Bu amaçla Yaşar Kemal’in Kuşlar da Gittiromanındaki söz konusu emir-istek biçimleri aynı kitabın Almanca çevirisi Auch die Vögel sind fort’taki çevirileriyle karşılaştırılmaktadır. Karşılaştırmanın amacı çeviri eleştirisi değildir; yalnızca durum saptaması yapılmaktadır. Saptanan çeviri olanaklarının Alman dili eğitimi öğrencilerinde nasıl yansıma bulacağını görebilmek için bir de dar kapsamlı bir çeviri anketi uygulanmıştır. Türk dilinin bu dolaylı emir-istek için somut dilbilgisel bir ulam (Ali gelsin!) geliştirmişken, Almancada bire bir karşılaştırılabilir dilbilgisel bir eşdeğerlilik saptanmamıştır. Bu ulamın işlevi Almancada özellikle 3. kişi dolaylı anlatımla (Jeder kehre vor seiner eigenen Haustür!) ve yardımcı eylemlerle (Das Feuer soll von hier mitgenommen werden) karşılanmaktadır. Anlamsal bir ulam olan kipselliğin Türkçe ifadesindeki birçok örtüşmezlik, bu konunun Almanca öğretiminde daha çok dikkate alınması gerektiğini göstermiştir. Öğrencilerle yaptığımız çeviri uygulamasındaki diğer saptamamız, çevirilerdeki yetersizliğin sözlük kullanımındaki yetersizliğe dayandığıdır.
In this paper I investigate a change in the word order patterns of Greek nominalizations that took place from the Classical Greek (CG) period to the Modem Greek (MG) one. Specifically, in CG both the patterns in (A), with its two subtypes, and (B) were possible; the MG system, on the other hand, exhibits only the (B) pattern. The difference between the two systems is that agents can only be introduced in the form of prepositional phrase in MG nominals in a position following the head noun, while they could appear in a prenominal position bearing genitive case in CG. Moreover, the theme genitive, i.e. the objective genitive, could precede the head nominal in CG; this is no longer the case in MG, where the theme genitive follows the head noun obligatorily:
(A) i) Det-(Genagent)-Nprocess-Gentheme 1 ii) Det-Gentheme-Nprocess
(B)Det-Nprocess-Gentheme (Ppagent)
I argue that the unavailability of (A) in MG is linked to the nature and the properties associated with a nominal functional projection contained within process non~inals and to other related changes in the nominal system of Greek.
It is common knowledge in the field of Philippine linguistics that an ang-marked direct object in a non-actor focus clause must be definite or generic, while a ng-marked object in an actor focus clause typically receives a nonspecific interpretation. However, in contexts like wh-questions, the oblique object in an antipassive may be interpreted as specific, as noted by Schachter & Otanes (1972), Maclachlan & Nakamura (1997), Rackowski (2002), and others. […] In this paper, I propose to account for the specificity effects […] within the analysis of Tagalog syntax put forth by Aldridge (2004). I analyze Tagalog as an ergative language […]. Cross linguistically, antipassive oblique objects receive a nonspecific interpretation, while absolutives are definite or generic. I show in this paper how the Tagalog facts can be subsumed under a general account of ergativity.
Issues on topics
(2000)
The present volume contains papers that bear mainly on issues concerning the topic concept. This concept is of course very broad and diverse. Also, different views are expressed in this volume. Some authors concentrate on the status of topics and non-topics in so-called topic prominent languages (i.e. Chinese), others focus on the syntactic behavior of topical constituents in specific European languages (German, Greek, Romance languages). The last contribution tries to bring together the concept of discourse topic (a non-syntactic notion) and the concept of sentence topic, i.e. that type of topic that all the preceding papers are concerned with.
Nominalizations
(2002)
The present volume is a selection of the papers presented in workshops at ZAS in Berlin in November 2000 and at theUniversity of Tübingen in April 2001, devoted to synchronic and, diachronic aspects of various types of nominalizations. Nominalization has a long history in linguistic research. Its nature can only be captured by taking into account the interface between morphology, syntax and semantics on the one hand, and the interface between semantics and conceptual structure on the other.
The papers in this volume take up some aspects of the preverbal domain(s) in Bantu languages. They were originally presented at the Workshop BantuSynPhonIS: Preverbal Domain(s), held at the Center for General Linguistics (ZAS), in Berlin, on 14-15 November 2014. This workshop was coorganized by ZAS (Fatima Hamlaoui & Tonjes Veenstra) and the Humboldt University (Tom Güldemann, Yukiko Morimoto and Ines Fiedler).
The papers in this volume were presented at the eleventh meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA 11), held from April 23-25 at the Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin, Germany. The conference was organized by Hans-Martin Gärtner, Joachim Sabel, and myself, as part of the research project Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). We would like to thank Wayan Arka, Agibail Cohn, Laura Downing, Silke Hamann, S J Hannahs, Ray Harlow, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Yuchua E. Hsiao, Lillian Huang, Ed Keenan, Glyne Piggott, Charles Randriamasimanana, Joszef Szakos, Barbara Stiebels, Jane Tang, Lisa Travis, Noami Tsukido, Sam Wang, Elizabeth Zeitoun, Kie Ross Zuraw, and Marzena Zygis for reviewing the abstracts. We are thankful to Mechthild Bernhard, Jenny Ehrhardt, Fabienne Fritzsche, Theódóra Torfadóttir and Tue Trinh for their help during the conference. I would like to thank Theódóra for providing essential editorial assistance.