Sprachtheorie und Germanistische Linguistik 7. [antikvár]

Summary In the view of this paper there is a fundamental difference between phonologic features such as fór instance [asonorant], [atense], [alow], and morphologic and syntactic features such as fór example [afemale], [autterance], [aspeaker], [apreteritum], [aoblique]: At least somé of the first reflect phonetic facts, while fór the latter there is no such physical basis. It follows from this that marking conventions and natural classes in phonologic theory are alsó object to other empirical evidence than marking conventions and natural classes in morphologic and syntactic theory: We have somé good arguements, fór example, to defend the view that consonants in universal grammar are marked fór the value [+sonorant] and that the feature [+nasal] is marked fór vowels and unmarked fór consonants. To defend features and natural classes in syntactic or in morphologic theory is a much more slippery task. Whereas phonologic categories reflect phonetic facts, morphologic and syntactic categories reflect cognitive phenomena of a special kind: Morphologic and syntactic categories are ordered in hierarchic arrangements in the view presented here. The principles fór the hierarchic arrangements of morphologic and syntactic categories are seen to be universal and limited to the humán species, whereas the categories themselves, subcategories, and their hierarchic arrangements are more or less language speciftc. The principles fór the hierarchic arrangements of morphologic and syntactic categories are subject to empirical investigations. The hierarchic arrangement of categories is responsible fór the fact, that grammatic rules usually refer to subclasses of paradigms. Fór example, stem variation in Germán holds fór nouns only in the plural (Gras - Graser), the rule fór Germán verb inflection picks out in the plural the eláss l./3.person, cf. wir / sie schlaf-en. and so on. In respect to their being included in different paradigms, the categories number, case, gender, indetermined on the one hand, and number, person, tense, and mood on the other, can form specific connections between hierarchies. In respect to their paradigms, the word classes verb, noun, determiner, adjective are of varying complexity. These too are hierarchically organized and in a hierarchic relationship to each other. We reject fór this the view of several modem grammatic models of the features [aV, bN] and differentiate the parts of speach on the basis of language specific classes that are inflected, in Germán fór example, fór number (yerbs, nouns, determiners, adjectives), fór case (nouns, determiners, adjectives), fór gender (determiners, adjeclives) and fór indetermined (adjectives).