UNITYP
The term UNITYP is a syllable word as a combination of the two terms (linguistic) Uni versal (s) and (linguistic) Type ology. The German title was: “Linguistic research on universals and typology with special consideration of functional aspects”. This stands for the work that a linguistic research group at the University of Cologne did in the field of universals using the methods of language typology between 1972 and 1992.
history
In 1972, the Swiss Hansjakob Seiler , who held a professorship for linguistics at the University of Cologne , began a new type of research project for which he was able to recruit some employees on a voluntary basis. Just one year later and in the following years, funds were approved by the German Research Foundation , turning the private initiative of one individual into a DFG project. In 1978 an official research group was established. Now full-time and part-time workers could be employed. Former employees who got a job outside Cologne became associate members. Prominent linguists such as the internationally renowned linguist Christian Lehmann emerged from such former employees . In 1992, six years after Seiler's retirement and twenty years after it was founded, the UNITYP research group ended its work. By then she had published countless works on her project in four different forms of publication ( akup [works of the Cologne Universalienprojekt], LW [Linguistic Workshop] I-III, Language Universals [the files of a 1978 congress], Language Universals Series). This work related to a number of so-called dimensions, namely:
- NOMINATION
- CONCOMITANCE
- DETERMINATION
- POSSESSION
- APPREHENSION
- PARTICIPATION
- SITUATION
- LOCALIZATION.
Conception
The UNITYP project works with a certain functional approach that distinguishes between a cognitive- conceptual domain and a linguistic dimension. For example, the cognitive concept Possession consists of a relationship between an owner and a possession , and the older distinction of alienable and unalienable property is adopted. Linguistically different constructions, so-called techniques like I have a book and I have a book , are recorded, but also nominal techniques like my book , my father , whose differences only become clear when they are transformed into a construction with a possessive verb, which is not possible in all cases ( I own a book vs. *? I have a father ). Both in the cognitive and in the linguistic area there is a diversity that cannot simply be resolved categorically or by resorting to a deep structure in the sense of formal approaches.
Thought concepts are invariant and present in all languages; H. universal . Linguistic techniques, on the other hand, are variable and can vary from language to language. The nominal technique, in which a possessive adjective is placed next to a noun , is available in many languages, for example in all European languages, but not, for example, in North American Cahuilla , which uses possessive prefixes and possessive classifiers instead. The task of linguistics is to combine as many techniques as possible into one concept. The relation between variants and the invariant is not a direct relation. It is implemented over three hierarchical levels:
1. the level of individual language facts;
2. the level of language comparison , on which the techniques of linguistic realization of a concept are compared;
3. the level of cognitive concepts.
For the POSSESSION concept there are u. a. the following techniques: a construction of possessive pronouns + nouns (e.g. my house ) or possessive affix + classifier + nouns ( my-pet dog ); a case construction (e.g. with genitive : Susannes Haus or as a constructus relationship, where the carrier noun is marked by the status constructus : old Hebrew beth-el : house of God [ beth = status constr. to bajit ]), a verb like have , belong (e.g. the house belongs to Susanne ), or an apparently spatial construction for the possessive expression (e.g. in West African Akan , where the sentence he / she has a red bicycle would literally mean he / she is with red bike ).
According to an important finding of the UNITYP project, techniques for expressing a certain concept can be continuously arranged in a so-called dimension. At one pole of the dimension is the global capture of the concept, at the other pole the explicit capture of the same relationship. The continuum unfolds in such a way that additional information is entered gradually.
When concept owned the dimension designed as follows: At one end stands a Possessum -noun such. B. head ; the relation to a possessor is already included ( head is always someone's head ). Constructions like my / your / his / her / its head introduces person-differentiating information, i. H. ownership becomes more explicit. Verbal constructions with have , possess , etc. also allow a differentiation z. B. according to the tense , whereby the ownership relationship gets a temporal reference (cf. "Susanne has a house" and "Susanne had a house"). From this dimension z. For example, it can also be seen that the increasing explicitness in the linguistic representation of the concept of possession goes hand in hand with an increase in the control of the possessor over the possessum. This can u. a. at the two verbs have and have seen that explicitly express the ownership ratio differently: The verb have implied more control of the owner as the semantically vague and as auxiliary usable have (see. Susanne has a house and Susanne owns a house ).
By differentiating between invariant concepts and variable techniques, the language comparison is also placed on a sound basis. Before the Tertium comparationis of the concept, the different individual language techniques can be compared. Universality research is looking for individual concepts such as the OWNING concept; The language typology has the task of looking for similar strategies in the languages of the world to express a certain concept and to combine them into techniques.
The principle explained above of describing the concept of ownership in a continuum of possible representation techniques can also be applied to other concepts, e.g. B. on the invariants object, number, locality, process, polarity, etc. (see also above at the end of the section "History"). Future research has yet to clarify whether it is applicable to all conceivable concepts.
literature
- Hansjakob Seiler (Ed.): Linguistic Workshop I. Preliminary work for a universals project. Fink, Munich 1973.
- Hansjakob Seiler (Ed.): Linguistic Workshop II. Work of the Cologne Universality Project 1973/74. Fink, Munich 1974.
- Hansjakob Seiler (Ed.): Linguistic Workshop III. Work of the Cologne Universals Project 1974. Fink, Munich 1975. ISBN 3-7705-1235-9 .
- Hansjakob Seiler (Ed.): Language Universals. Papers from the Conference held at Gummersbach / Cologne, Germany, October 3-8, 1976. Narr, Tübingen 1978. ISBN 3-87808-111-1 .
- Hansjakob Seiler: Cognitive-Conceptual Structure and Linguistic Encoding: Language Universals and Typology in the UNITYP Framework . In: M. Shibatani & T. Bynon (eds.): Approaches to language typology . Oxford: Oxford University Press 1995, pp. 273-325.
- Jae Jung Song: Linguistic Typology. Morphology and Syntax . Harlow (GB): Pearson Education Ltd. 2001, pp. 345-350.