Over the past few decades, the book series Linguistische Arbeiten [Linguistic Studies], comprising over 500 volumes, has made a significant contribution to the development of linguistic theory both in Germany and internationally. The series will continue to deliver new impulses for research and maintain the central insight of linguistics that progress can only be made in acquiring new knowledge about human languages both synchronically and diachronically by closely combining empirical and theoretical analyses. To this end, we invite submission of high-quality linguistic studies from all the central areas of general linguistics and the linguistics of individual languages which address topical questions, discuss new data and advance the development of linguistic theory.
The Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics is a unique reference work for students and teachers of linguistics. The highly regarded second edition of the Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft by Hadumod Bussmann has been specifically adapted by a team of over thirty specialist linguists to form the most comprehensive and up-to-date work of its kind in the English language. In over 2,500 entries, the Dictionary provides an exhaustive survey of the key terminology and languages of more than 30 subdisciplines of linguistics. With its term-based approach and emphasis on clear analysis, it complements perfectly Routledge's established range of reference material in the field of linguistics.
This is the first of a series of 6 books dealing with case phenomena in different languages, both Indo- and non-Indo-European, resulting from work by a team of 20 specialists at the University of Leuven. It is the first time such a large-scale investigation into case has been undertaken, and a remarkable feature of the project is the use of computer corpora of authentic material. This bibliography presents the many dimensions involved in research into case and case-related phenomena. This includes not only morphological case markers, but also the crossconstituent (semantic and grammatical) relations expressed by morphological case or by its various counterparts; morpho-syntactic processes such as transitivity and passivization; and pragmatic and textual considerations. In addition, the bibliography reflects the implications of case research for other disciplines, such as foreign language teaching and artificial intelligence. More than 6000 publications are listed. An extensive Subject Index provides easy access to all the topics and major concepts covered. A Language Index and a Guide to Languages/Language Families conclude the book. The other volumes in the series include The Dative (2 vols), The Genitive, The Nominative and Accusative, and Non-nuclear Cases.
This book is concerned with the mapping of thematic roles, such as agent and patient, onto syntactic cases, such as nominative or ergative, or onto structural relations. It shows that cases and structural relations code different aspects of thematic structure. The thematic determination of the structural relation of an argument is confined to its position in the thematic structure of the predicate. Case mapping is determined by the number of basic thematic concepts involved in this structure. This fact and other facts presented in the book presuppose an approach to thematic roles that decomposes them into more basic concepts involving volitionality, causation, activity, sentience, possession, etc., and motivate the hypothesis that syntactic cases cannot be derived from structural relations in universal grammar. The phenomena pertaining to relational typology that classifies languages into ergative, accusative and active languages are shown to be restricted to case mapping. The specific thematic determination of case mapping and the hierarchical organization of case systems explain not only the existence of these types of mapping, but also the fact that ergative and active phenomena are typically case-based. The book provides a global cross-linguistic perspective, but German data recurrently serve as an illustration of the main theoretical assumptions.
How do words mean? What is the nature of meaning? How can we grasp a word’s meaning? The frame-semantic approach developed in this book offers some well-founded answers to such long-standing, but still controversial issues. Following Charles Fillmore’s definition of frames as both organizers of experience and tools for understanding, the monograph attempts to examine one of the most important concepts of Cognitive Linguistics in more detail. The point of departure is Fillmore’s conception of “frames of understanding” – an approach to (cognitive) semantics that Fillmore developed from 1975 to 1985. The envisaged Understanding Semantics (“U-Semantics”) is a semantic theory sui generis whose significance for linguistic research cannot be overestimated. In addition to its crucial role in the development of the theoretical foundations of U-semantics, corpus-based frame semantics can be applied fruitfully in the investigation of knowledge-building processes in text and discourse.
This volume, which has partly grown from a Round Table at the XIVth International Congress of Linguists, argues for a large amount of underlying unity in outlook among different frameworks in present-day linguistics: the contemporary Prague School; the Noematic approach; the UNITYP model; Integrational Linguistics; Natural Morphology; much recent work in phonology; and Popperian Interactionism as applied, in particular, to historical linguistics. Section I discusses philosophical issues such as realism vs. cognitivism; Section II characterizes current frameworks; and Section III deals with individual linguistic areas like phonology. Leading representatives of the various approaches are shown to agree in subscribing to most if not all of nine 'Principles of New Structuralism' that combine ontological realism with non-cognitivist mentalism. These principles define a position that is structuralist in a novel sense and appears to be partly represented also in approaches such as Katzian 'Platonism' and Searle's intentionalism; it should be compatible with frameworks like GPSG. There are definite historical connections with European structuralism. The position is incompatible with current cognitivism of the 'mechanism' type but otherwise bridges traditional oppositions such as the dichotomy of generative vs. non-generative frameworks.
Seminar paper from the year 2002 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Linguistics, grade: 1,3 (A), University of Cologne, language: English, abstract: Introduction: In comparison to English, the German language does not seem to have a specific word order. The distinction between grammatical functions like subjects or objects is mainly due to case-inflection and prepositions. For that reason, word order in German sentences can vary to some extent without a fundamental change in meaning. In the following analysis of German syntax, we are going to consider a possibility of finding the basic German word order. On the basis of the Government and Binding Theory, a widely accepted approach to syntactic analysis, we are going to argue that the structure of a subordinate clause underlies every German sentence. In doing so, we will find that the position of the verb will play a pivotal role. With the help of a clear characterisation, it becomes easier to understand German syntax and to contrast it with other languages such as English. Although the two languages are closely related in historical terms, German sentence structure differs from English SVO (subject-verb-object) word order, which we will examine in chapter III. But before we can embark on the study of English and German syntax, we need to introduce a considerable amount of terminology and syntactic principles, which will form the necessary set of rules in our subsequent analysis. Kurzer Überblick auf Deutsch: Diese Arbeit sucht auf der Grundlage der Government and Binding Theory nach der Basisstruktur eines jeden deutschen Satzes. Während in der englischen Sprache die Subjekt-Verb-Objekt-Struktur vorliegt, und man mit Blick auf deutsche Hauptsätze Gleiches im Deutschen vermuten könnte, so bringt diese Arbeit eine Vielzahl von Argumenten, die eine Subjekt-Objekt-Verb-Struktur in der deutschen Sprache nahe legen. Ungläubig? Eine kurze Übersetzung von "to sing a song" oder "to watch a movie" ver
