Glossar-English:Morphology and Syntax: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Keine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung |
Keine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung |
||
| Zeile 12: | Zeile 12: | ||
==Grammar versus Morphology== | ==Grammar versus Morphology== | ||
Since the idea of grammar in the form of generative syntax<ref>See [http:// | Since the idea of grammar in the form of generative syntax<ref>See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_grammar Wi­ki­pe­dia: Generative Grammar].</ref> has been very fruitful in the field of language, various proposals have been made to study image syntax using an analog [[Bildgrammatik|picture grammar]]. However, these approaches were not very successful, because the compositional syntax is primarily interested in syntactically correct compositions of words – as the elementary language signs – to form ''sentences'' – than the complex language signs. A convincing pictorial analog of ''words'' in such a way that images could be understood as “sentences” formed from them has not yet been proposed. With morphology, however, there is another area of syntactic studies of language that examines words themselves as complex structures:<ref> Although the term ‘morphology’ was introduced into linguistic research as early as 1859 by August Schleicher (under the influence of Goethe's morphological theory of plant growth), a specifically morphological study of words – in contrast to the syntactic-grammatical studies of sentence structure and independent of the phonology – not promoted until the 1970s; <bib id='Schleicher 1859a'>Schlei­cher 1859a</bib>; cf. also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29 Wi­ki­pe­dia: Morphology (linguistics)].</ref> How should the inner structure of words and the relationship between different grammatical forms of a word or the relationships between related words be described in a meaningful way? Here, too, a generative approach is usually assumed, which, however, differs significantly from the grammatical sentence structures. One of the reasons for this is that the morphological analysis does not depend on the distinction between sentence and word. In other words: While grammatical compositionality only makes sense for[[Zeichen, Zeichenträger, Zeichensystem|wort/sign systems organized in a word/sentence language]], morphological considerations can be carried out more generally for any sign system with complex signs.<ref>In other words: The “microstructure” of the individual words of sign systems organized as a word/sentence-language reflects a form of semiotic composition of structured sign carriers that is older than the “macrostructural” combination of words into sentences.</ref> | ||
: | : | ||
From a philosophical point of view, the question arises as to whether the morphological perspective is better suited than the grammatical one to grasp syntactical connections in the image. A closer look at the morphological structures of linguistic sign systems in the narrower sense ([[#Language: morphemes and morphological operators|2]]) and at related considerations of general language types ([[#Isolating, polysynthetic, fusing, and agglutinating language systems|3]]) makes sense to answer this question. | From a philosophical point of view, the question arises as to whether the morphological perspective is better suited than the grammatical one to grasp syntactical connections in the image. A closer look at the morphological structures of linguistic sign systems in the narrower sense ([[#Language: morphemes and morphological operators|2]]) and at related considerations of general language types ([[#Isolating, polysynthetic, fusing, and agglutinating language systems|3]]) makes sense to answer this question. | ||
| Zeile 19: | Zeile 19: | ||
==Language: morphemes and morphological operators== | ==Language: morphemes and morphological operators== | ||
In | In morphological analysis, a word is understood to be composed of segments that contribute to the meaning or grammatical function of the word, called ‘morphemes’.<ref>The term ‘morpheme’ was proposed by B. de Courtenay about 1881 and further elaborated by L. Bloomfield; <bib id='Bloomfield 1933a'>Bloom­field 1933a</bib>; cf. also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheme Wi­ki­pe­dia: Mor­pheme].</ref> For example, the suffix ‘-ed’ in English, the prefix ‘pré-’ in French or the stem ‘-wend-’ in German are typical examples of morphemes. Morphological elements are primarily identified and classified by the substitution rule: For instance, some French words beginning with ‘pré-’ can be transformed into other French words by replacing the prefix with ‘re-’, ‘con-’, ‘de-’ etc. is replaced. | ||
: | : | ||
Morphemes do not necessarily consist of a specific sequence of sounds or letters. In English, for example, the morpheme indicating the plural of a noun can appear in two variants, the so-called allomorphs: ‘-s’ or ‘-es’.<ref>Phonetically, depending on the noun considered, there are even more allomorphs, since ‘-s’ or ‘-es’ can be pronounced voiced or unvoiced, depending on the context.</ref> Although many morphemes are meaning-modifying, they do not necessarily have a meaning of their own: Most morphemes are not themselves words. Morphemes that are also words and therefore have their own meaning are called ''free'' morphemes or ''lexemes''; the others are called ''bound''.The semantic or grammatical function of a morpheme can also be ambiguous and differ in different compositions (e.g. the morpheme ‘-(e)s’ as an inflectional suffix or as a plural suffix in English). It is primarily the stem morphemes that convey a core meaning that can be modified by morphological operations. | |||
: | : | ||
Morphological operations play a central role in the formation of new words. In general, they can be differentiated into ''internal'' modifications, which essentially involve vowel changes (eg ‘come’ to ‘came’), and ''external'' ones Modifications by adding so-called affixes – in addition to prefixes and suffixes, circumfixes (simultaneous use of prefixes and suffixes) and infixes (insertion of a syllable in between) are combined – or by compound formation, which is responsible for many spontaneous word formations in German, for example (e.g. ‘Bankenschutzschirm’). While internal modifications effectively change the “color” of a word, external modifications change its shape and size. | |||
: | : | ||
Morphemes are best understood as carriers of unsaturated sub-actions of an overall sign action without an independent [[Pragmatik, Semantik, Syntax|pragmatic]] function, which in a more or less specific way influences the meaning or grammatical function (and thus the way it is used) of the whole word, but cannot themselves be considered sign actions.<ref>This restriction distinguishes them from [[Prädikation|predication]] aund [[Nomination|nomination]], for example, which are in fact unsaturated sub-sign actions and each carry very specific pragmatic functions.</ref> | |||
Version vom 21. Juli 2023, 16:44 Uhr
Unterpunkt zu: Zeichentheorien: Übersicht
Grammar versus MorphologySince the idea of grammar in the form of generative syntax[1] has been very fruitful in the field of language, various proposals have been made to study image syntax using an analog picture grammar. However, these approaches were not very successful, because the compositional syntax is primarily interested in syntactically correct compositions of words – as the elementary language signs – to form sentences – than the complex language signs. A convincing pictorial analog of words in such a way that images could be understood as “sentences” formed from them has not yet been proposed. With morphology, however, there is another area of syntactic studies of language that examines words themselves as complex structures:[2] How should the inner structure of words and the relationship between different grammatical forms of a word or the relationships between related words be described in a meaningful way? Here, too, a generative approach is usually assumed, which, however, differs significantly from the grammatical sentence structures. One of the reasons for this is that the morphological analysis does not depend on the distinction between sentence and word. In other words: While grammatical compositionality only makes sense forwort/sign systems organized in a word/sentence language, morphological considerations can be carried out more generally for any sign system with complex signs.[3] From a philosophical point of view, the question arises as to whether the morphological perspective is better suited than the grammatical one to grasp syntactical connections in the image. A closer look at the morphological structures of linguistic sign systems in the narrower sense (2) and at related considerations of general language types (3) makes sense to answer this question.
Language: morphemes and morphological operatorsIn morphological analysis, a word is understood to be composed of segments that contribute to the meaning or grammatical function of the word, called ‘morphemes’.[4] For example, the suffix ‘-ed’ in English, the prefix ‘pré-’ in French or the stem ‘-wend-’ in German are typical examples of morphemes. Morphological elements are primarily identified and classified by the substitution rule: For instance, some French words beginning with ‘pré-’ can be transformed into other French words by replacing the prefix with ‘re-’, ‘con-’, ‘de-’ etc. is replaced. Morphemes do not necessarily consist of a specific sequence of sounds or letters. In English, for example, the morpheme indicating the plural of a noun can appear in two variants, the so-called allomorphs: ‘-s’ or ‘-es’.[5] Although many morphemes are meaning-modifying, they do not necessarily have a meaning of their own: Most morphemes are not themselves words. Morphemes that are also words and therefore have their own meaning are called free morphemes or lexemes; the others are called bound.The semantic or grammatical function of a morpheme can also be ambiguous and differ in different compositions (e.g. the morpheme ‘-(e)s’ as an inflectional suffix or as a plural suffix in English). It is primarily the stem morphemes that convey a core meaning that can be modified by morphological operations. Morphological operations play a central role in the formation of new words. In general, they can be differentiated into internal modifications, which essentially involve vowel changes (eg ‘come’ to ‘came’), and external ones Modifications by adding so-called affixes – in addition to prefixes and suffixes, circumfixes (simultaneous use of prefixes and suffixes) and infixes (insertion of a syllable in between) are combined – or by compound formation, which is responsible for many spontaneous word formations in German, for example (e.g. ‘Bankenschutzschirm’). While internal modifications effectively change the “color” of a word, external modifications change its shape and size. Morphemes are best understood as carriers of unsaturated sub-actions of an overall sign action without an independent pragmatic function, which in a more or less specific way influences the meaning or grammatical function (and thus the way it is used) of the whole word, but cannot themselves be considered sign actions.[6]
Isolating, polysynthetic, fusing, and agglutinating language systemsFormale Satzbildungsgrammatik und wortbildende morphologische Zusammenhänge sind zwei polare Organisationsprinzipien, zwischen denen sich die verschiedenen (natürlichen) Sprachen auf einer Skala einordnen lassen. Stellt man die mittlere Anzahl von Morphemen, die in einer Sprache (oder allgemeiner einem wortsprachlichen Zeichensystem) verwendet werden, der hauptsächlichen Art des grammatischen Satzbaus gegenüber, so ordnen sich die natürlichen Sprachen im Wesentlichen entlang einer Diagonalen:[7]
Sprachen, bei denen grammatische Satzstrukturen den Aufbau dominieren, werden isolierende Sprachen genannt. Verzichtet eine Sprache fast gänzlich auf grammatische Satzbildungsregeln und stützt sich vor allem auf morphologische Wortbildungsregeln, so spricht man von fusionierenden Sprachen. Die Extreme reichen also beispielsweise von einer Kasusbildung nur über Präpositionen einerseits bis zu einem am Wort selbst markierten Kasussystem mit deutlich mehr als vier Fällen andererseits. Die meisten Sprachen bewegen sich zwischen diesen beiden Extremen (hier als ‘agglutinierend’ bezeichnet).[8] Andererseits werden Sprachen, deren Wörter im Mittel aus vielen Morphemen bestehen, als polysynthetisch bezeichnet, während Sprachen, bei denen Wörter aus sehr wenigen Morphemen, oft nur einem einzigen Lexem gebildet sind, isolierend heißen. Synthetische Sprachen nehmen dabei eine Mittelstellung ein. Wie in der Tabelle angedeutet, sind die menschlichen Sprachen im Wesentlichen entlang der Diagonale zwischen analytisch-isolierenden Systemen und polysynthetisch-fusionierenden angeordnet. Vergleicht man etwa Deutsch mit Englisch, so befinden sich zwar beide eher im Mittelfeld, doch basiert Englisch auf kürzeren Wörtern (eher isolierend), die in einer eher festen Satzstellung gebraucht werden, während das Deutsche stärker zu Kompositabildungen neigt, in deutlich höherem Maße auf Wortflexionen angewiesen ist (eher fusionierend), zugleich aber eine weitaus freiere Wortstellung erlaubt. In extrem analytisch-isolierenden Sprachen, wie etwa Chinesisch, werden Wörter, die aus nur sehr wenigen Morphemen bestehen, niemals morphologisch verändert. Alle grammatischen Relationen werden durch spezielle Wörter ausgedrückt[9] oder durch die Position des Wortes im Satz bestimmt (etwa S-P-O). Sätze sind direkte Gruppierungen von Wörtern, wobei für gewöhnlich eine recht strikte Reihenfolge einzuhalten ist. Eine extrem polysynthetisch-agglutinierende Sprache würde im Gegensatz dazu nur aus Einwort-Sätzen bestehen, wobei die Wörter allerdings meist auf ausgesprochen viele Morpheme zurückgehen, die miteinander verschmolzen sind, um die vollständige Bedeutung entsprechend zu modifizieren. Viele Sprachen der amerikanischen Ureinwohner, wie etwa Náhuatl, nähern sich diesem Extrem stark an.[10] Beispielsweise kann die morphologische Struktur des Einwort-Satzes ‘matgībulhahumš’ im ägyptischen Arabisch wörtlich ungefähr übersetzt werden zu ‹nicht -Ihr-solltet-bringen-ihr-sie-Ding› (d.h.: ‘Ihr solltet sie nicht zu ihr bringen’). Das Wort besteht aus den beiden Circumflexen ‘ma...š’ (‹nicht … Ding›, Negation) und ‘t(i)...u’ (Marker für Imperfekt der zweiten Person Plural im jussiven Modus: etwa ‹Ihr solltet tun›), den beiden Morphemen ‘l(ī)ha’ (Dativ der dritten Person Singular feminin: ‹ihr›), ‘hum’ (Akkusativ der dritte Person Plural ‹sie›), sowie, als Stamm, ein intern modifiziertes Lexem ‘gīb’, das die imperfektive Form von ‘gāb’ darstellt und im Deutschen dem Stamm von ‘bringen’ entspricht:
All diese morphologischen Elemente sind in ein einziges Wort amalgamiert, das als Satz verwendet wird. Das Schema einer solch komplexen Kombination durch Verschmelzung von Morphemen mit partiellen Phonem-Auslassungen zusammen mit der Verwendung umschließender und einfügender Affixe kann in der Tat die Vorstellung bildsyntaktischer Strukturen viel eher evozieren, als das Schema formaler Grammatiken.
Übertragung auf BilderOffensichtlich sind die geometrischen Elemente eines Bildträgers und ihre relative Anordnung entscheidend für Bedeutung und pragmatische Funktion eines Bildes, ohne dass ihnen doch jeweils eine klar umrissene eigene Bedeutung unabhängig vom Bildganzen zugeordnet werden könnte. Ein kleiner orangerot ausgefüllter Kreis kann – unter anderem – als Nase eines Schneemanns dienen oder als untergehende Sonne. Flächig zusammengeschmolzen bilden diese Elemente eine in sich abgeschlossene morphologische Einheit, die eine deutliche Analogie zu den Ein-Wort-Sätzen einer polysynthetischen Sprache aufweist. Da eine derartige Verschmelzung von funktionsmodifizierenden Komponenten in ein einziges Zeichen nicht von der Wort/Satz-Unterscheidung abhängig ist, wie sie für Sprache (im engeren Sinn) konstitutiv ist, legt sich eine morphologische Betrachtung der Bildsyntax nicht in gleicher Weise auf Grundelemente und Kompositionsregeln fest, die für bildgrammatische Analysen bislang den Erfolg verhinderten. Diese Idee wird im Artikel ⊳ Bildmorphologie näher betrachtet.[11] |
Anmerkungen
Literatur
[Bloomfield 1933a]Bloomfield, Leonard (1933): Language. Henry Holt and Co, New York.[Haase 2007a]Haase, Martin (2007): Sprachtypologie: Eine Einführung in die Erforschung der Vielfalt der Sprachen. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen.[Lehmann online]Lehmann, Christian (2012): Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung.[Schleicher 1859a]Schleicher, August (1859): Zur Morphologie der Sprache. Mémoires de l'académie impériale des sciences de St. Pétersbourg, 1?, 7. Ausgabe 1: 2013 Verantwortlich: Lektorat: Seitenbearbeitungen durch: Joerg R.J. Schirra und Marcel Lemmes — (Hinweis) Zitierhinweis: [Schirra 2013g-t]Schirra, Jörg R.J. (2013). Morphologie und Syntax. (Ausg. 1). In: Schirra, J.R.J.; Halawa, M. & Liebsch, D. (Hg.), Glossar der Bildphilosophie. (2012-2026). [bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Morphologie_und_Syntax]. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||