490 Andere Sprachen
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
- Konferenzveröffentlichung (13) (entfernen)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (13)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (13) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Tibetobirmanische Sprachen (2)
- Arabisch (1)
- Dialekt (1)
- Marker <Linguistik> (1)
- Nungisch (1)
- Phonetik (1)
- Retroflex (1)
- Slawische Sprachen (1)
- Standardsprache (1)
Institut
- Extern (6)
- Neuere Philologien (1)
In der arabischen Welt herrscht eine sehr alte und stabile Situation der Diglossie, d.h. des funktional geregelten Nebeneinanders von zwei historischen Entwicklungsstufen der gleichen Sprache. Das Moderne Hocharabisch ist eine konservierte Form des Klassischen Arabisch. Es genießt hohes Ansehen und dient als Schriftsprache, wird aber nicht muttersprachlich erworben, sondern durch Unterricht erlernt. Im mündlichen und informellen Bereich werden die jeweiligen Dialekte verwendet; sie sind die natürliche Muttersprache der Bevölkerung, genießen jedoch keinerlei Ansehen. Da die Hochsprache in ihrer äußeren Form nicht verändert werden darf, aber auch die Dialekte sich nicht zu modernen geschriebenen Volkssprachen entwickeln dürfen, scheint die Diglossiesituation für alle Zeit festgeschrieben. Dadurch ist das Überleben der Dialekte gesichert, obgleich sie sich untereinander stärker annähern. Die Geringschätzung der Dialekte in der arabischen Welt bedingt auch eine Ablehnung der Dialektologie. Deshalb war die arabische Dialektologie immer eine Domäne westlicher Forscher, doch nun deutet sich auch im Westen ihr Niedergang an.
Twenty years ago I discussed the oldest isoglosses in the South Slavic linguistic area (1982). Subscribing to Van Wijk’s view that the bundle of isoglosses which separates Bulgarian from Serbo-Croatian was the result of an early split in South Slavic and that the transitional dialects originated from a later mixture of Serbian and Bulgarian dialects when the contact between the two languages had been restored (1927), I argued that the shared innovations of Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian must be dated to a period when the dialects were still spoken in the original Trans-Carpathian homeland of the Slavs. I concluded that there is no evidence for common innovations of South Slavic which were posterior to the end of what I have called the Late Middle Slavic period, which I dated to the 4th through 6th centuries AD. At that time, the major dialect divisions of Slavic were already established.
Rawang (Rvwàng) is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in the far north of Myanmar (Burma), and is closely related to the Dulong language spoken in China. Rawang manifests a kind of hierarchical person marking on the predicate which marks first person primarily (in several different ways - suffixes, change of final consonant, vowel length - and up to five times within one verb complex), and second person indirectly with a sort of marking similar to the inverse marking found in some North American languages: it appears when there is a first person participant, but that referent is not the actor, and when the second person is a participant. This system is quite different from those that reflect semantic role (e.g. Qiang) or grammatical relations (e.g. English).
In terms of the direction of development, I referred to Johanna Nichols' work on head-marking vs. dependant marking. Nichols did not make reference to any languages in Tibeto-Burman, but all of the Tibeto-Burman languages that do not have verb agreement systems are solidly dependent-marking (i.e., they have marking on the nouns for case or pragmatic function); those languages with verb agreement systems, a type of head marking, also have many dependent-marking features (of the same types as the non-pronominalized languages). The question, then, is which is older, the dependent-marking type or the headmarking (actually mixed) type?
The present study poses the question on what phonetic and phonological grounds postalveolar fricatives in Polish can be analyzed as retroflex and whether postalveolar fricatives in other Slavic languages are retroflex as well. Velarization and incompatibility with front vowels are introduced as articulatory criteria for retroflexion, based on crosslinguistic data. According to these criteria, Polish and Russian have retroflex fricatives, whereas Bulgarian and Czech do not. In a phonological representation of these Slavic retroflexes, the necessity of perceptual features is shown. Lastly, it is illustrated that palatalization of retroflex fricatives both in Slavic languages and more generally causes a phonetic and phonological change to a non-retroflex sound.
The languages of the world differ with respect to argument extraction possibilities. In languages such as English, wh-movement is possible from Spec IP and from the complement position, whereas in languages such as Malagasy only extraction from Spec IP is possible. This difference correlates with the fact that these language types obey different island constraints and behave differently with respect to wh-in situ and superiority effects. The goal of this paper is to outline an analysis for these differences. The basic idea is that in contrast to languages such as English, in Malagasy-type languages every argument can be merged in the complement position of the selecting head.