Sprachtypologie und die Rekonstruktion der gemeinindogermanischen Verschlüsse

Gamkrelidze, Thomas V.; Иванов, В. Д.

doi:10.1159/000259433

Cited by 67 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet others think that both the voiceless and the voiced series were aspirated, with the voiceless stops having nonaspirated allophones ( Watkins 1992). All glottalic models posit (a) ejectives instead of the voiced stops traditionally postulated, and (b) that the labial stop was absent from the ejectivized voiceless series.31 According to its proponents, this is a much less marked state of affairs (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1973; cf. the critical discussion in Hock 1991: 621-626).…”

Section: Conclusion Discussion and Issues For Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of segmental modification in consonant inventories: a cross-linguistic study

Hinskens¹

2003

Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well known that secondary articulation types, such as labialization and palatalization, as well as laryngeal modifications, such as aspiration and glottalization, can play a contrastive role in segment inventories. This article describes an investigation of such segmental modifications, whether laryngeal, supralaryngeal or nasal, on the basis of detailed analyses of each of the 317 languages in the cross-linguistic database presented in Maddieson (1984). In the first part of this investigation, the hypothesis is tested that segmental modifications occur on natural classes of consonants rather than randomly or on isolated segments. A formalism is proposed to express this regularity. Recent theoretical proposals concerning the representation of complex segments, in particular affricates, lead to predictions regarding the patterning of segmental modification on such segments; in the second part of our investigation, these predictions are tested against the cross-linguistic data on segmental modification on affricates in the same sample of languages.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion Discussion and Issues For Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of segmental modification in consonant inventories: a cross-linguistic study

Hinskens¹

2003

Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The so-called glottalic theory, which replaces the traditionally reconstructed voiced stops with ejectives, has also been informed of typological results. Phonological systems comprising a voiceless, a glottalized, and an aspirated series (/t/, /t ʔ /, /t h /) conform to synchronic typological findings, but the system arrived at by the conventional reconstruction does not (see Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1973).…”

Section: Typology and Language Changementioning

confidence: 95%

Linguistic Typology

Shibatani¹

2015

International Encyclopedia of the Social &Amp; Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern linguistic typology is a method in language universals research. Implicational statements in the form of 'if X, then Y' are drawn based on cross-linguistic distributional patterns of existing and nonexisting types. These statements constitute language universals delimiting the range of possible human languages; for example, a language with X property but without Y property is excluded from the possibility. A functional, as opposed to a structuralist, typological approach allows comparison of languages in term of functional equivalence/disparity rather than in terms of categorial and structural properties, which differ from one language to another.Linguistic typology evolved from a nineteenth-century attempt to classify the languages of the world and to ascertain possible variation among them. While the current practice in typology essentially retains these goals, modern typology differs from classical typology in its scope and methodology. Instead of typological characterization of an entire language, specific phenomena or individual constructions are studied. Constraints on possible variation are stated in terms of implicational universals derived from the distributional patterns of existing and nonexisting types. Typology is nowadays considered as a particular method of linguistic investigation. In contrast to other formal approaches to grammar, such as Chomskyan generative grammar, the typological method is functionally oriented in that what is sought is the typology of the relations between function and form and in that it seeks external explanation for the observed patterns. A careful study of different types of language suggests that languages may differ more radically in the organization of grammar than believed in the latter half of the twentieth century. It is likely that crosslinguistic similarity is more profitably sought in the functional equivalence and similarity than in the ways languages define and organize grammatical elements (see Section Typological Differences in Clausal Organization below).The term typology in linguistics, as in other fields, is generally understood to mean the classification of languages in terms of structural types. However, from the very beginning in the history of typological investigation, classification itself has never been the ultimate goal. For the grammarians of the early nineteenth century, exhaustive classification of the world's languages was a way to answer the question of what is possible variation in human language. For modern linguists, typological classification is part of a method for discovering the constraints governing possible human languages or possible grammatical constructions.Typological classification is frequently contrasted with the genetic classification of languages and is often characterized as a historic in its orientation. This was also not the case in the beginning of the typological studies in the early nineteenth century, when genetic and comparative approaches were not clearly distinguished from the typological one. Indeed, it was...

show abstract

“…The glottalic theory was originally formulated by Gamkrelidze &Ivanov 1973 andHopper 1973 as an alternative to conventional hypotheses about the PIE stop system. For convenience I will oppose it to the most widely accepted current hypothesis, now summarized in Mayrhofer 1986, which I will call the standard theory.…”

Section: The Laryngeal and Glottalic Theories Are Two Families Of Hypmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indo-European Reconstruction and Historical Methodologies

Garrett¹,

Vennemann²

1991

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language. The new sound of Indo-European: Essays in phonological reconstruction. Edited by THEO VENNEMANN. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 41.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1989. Pp. xvi, 300. Cloth $84.00.1. This volume contains the proceedings of a 1985 workshop organized by Theo Vennemann at the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, and, as its title promises, plainly demonstrates the continued aptness of Osborn Bergin's forty-year-old quip that no language had changed as much in the previous fifty years as Indo-European. Vennemann notes in a preface (x) that, while the workshop was intended to cover all areas of Indo-European (IE) phonology, NSIE mainly addresses topics in two areas, the laryngeal theory and the glottalic theory. Of these, the former was in its infancy fifty years ago, while the latter did not yet exist. This double focus is interesting even if it reflects workshop sociology and not, as Vennemann speculates (xii), 'the general epistemological Zeitgeist' of twentieth-century science, since it suggests a comparison of two approaches to historical linguistics. NSIE has thirty contributions in addition to the preface (ix-xiv)-fifteen papers, twelve responses to papers, two short notes, and a brief conclusion, grouped into four sections:I, 'Opening remarks': KONRAD KOERNER, 'Comments on reconstructions in historical linguistics' (3-15) Response: PIERRE SWIGGERS (17-20) Section II, 'Laryngeal Theory': ALFRED BAMMESBERGER, The laryngeal theory and the phonology of prehistoric Greek' (35-41) R. S. P. BEEKES, 'The nature of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals' (23-33) LEO A. CONNOLLY, 'Laryngeal metathesis: An Aryan peculiarity?' (43-51) ALEXANDER LUBOTSKY. 'Against a Proto-Indo-European phoneme *0' (53-66) WILLIAM R. SCHMALSTIEG, 'Monophthongizations: More plausible than laryngeals!' (67-73) Responses: Swiggers to Beekes and Bammesberger (77-79); P. J. HOPPER to Beekes (81) Section III, 'Glottalic Theory': PHILIP BALDI & RUTH JOHNSTON-STAVER, 'Historical Italic phonology in typological perspective' (85-101) THOMAS V. GAMKRELIDZE, 'Language typology and Indo-European reconstruction' (117-21) ERIC P. HAMP, 'The Indo-European obstruent features and phonotactic constraints' (209-14) MICHAEL JOB, 'Sound change typology and the "Ejective Model"' (123-36) FREDERICK KORTLANDT, 'Lachmann's law' (103-105) JENS ELMEGARD RASMUSSEN, 'Die Tenues Aspiratae: Dreiteilung oder Vierteilung des indoger-* For references, comments, and discussion I am very grateful to

show abstract

Sprachtypologie und die Rekonstruktion der gemeinindogermanischen Verschlüsse

Cited by 67 publications

References 0 publications

Patterns of segmental modification in consonant inventories: a cross-linguistic study

Patterns of segmental modification in consonant inventories: a cross-linguistic study

Linguistic Typology

Indo-European Reconstruction and Historical Methodologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About