Search

This paper discusses the role of English as the current lingua franca academica in contrast to a multilingual approach to scientific inquiry on the basis of four perspectives: a cognitive, a typological, a contrastive and a domain-specific one. It is argued that a distinction must be drawn between the natural sciences and the humanities in order to properly assess the potential of either linguistic solution to the problem of scientific communication. To the extent that the results of scientific research are expressed in formal languages and international standardised terminology, the exclusive use of one lingua franca is unproblematic, especially if phenomena of our external world are under consideration. In the humanities, by contrast, especially in the analysis of our non-visible, mental world, a single lingua franca cannot be regarded as a neutral instrument, but may more often than not become a conceptual prison. For the humanities the analysis of the conceptual system of a language provides the most reliable access to its culture. For international exchange of results, however, the humanities too have to rely on a suitable lingua franca as language of description as opposed to the language under description.

This handbook provides a comprehensive and thorough survey of our insights into the diversity and unity found across the 6000 languages of this planet. The 125 articles include inter alia chapters to the patterns and limits of variation manifested by various analoguos structures, constructions and linguistic devices across languages (for example, word order, tense and aspect, inflection, colour terms and syllable structure). Other chapters cover the history, methodology and the theory of typology, as well as the relationship between language typology and other disciplines. The majority of the the articles are written in English, some in French or German.

The differentiation of clause types in this chapter (declarative, interrogative, imperative, exclamative) is primarily based on morpho-syntactic criteria, but is also motivated by the use of these types for the performance of speech acts, i.e. acts resulting in a change of social situations. Instead of relating the different types directly to a list of speech acts typically performed by them, an attempt is made to characterize their illocutionary potential in terms of a basic meaning. On the basis of this approach the subtypes of the functional clause types and their possible use in specific contexts are characterized in detail. This systematization of the relationship between clause type and possible illocutionary acts is additionally based on the well-known distinction between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect(ly performed)’ speech acts. The chapter concludes with some comparative remarks characterizing the specific properties of English within the Germanic languages family and within a general typology of clause types.

After receiving enthusiastic support during the 1960s and 1970s, the program of ‘Contrastive linguistics’ led a somewhat modest, if not marginal, existence during the two subsequent decades. The main reason for the apparent failure of this program was, of course, that the high hopes seen in its potential for making foreign language teaching more efficient were disappointed. Empirical work on the process of L2-acquisition from different native languages as starting points showed that contrastive linguistics cannot simply be equated with a theory of foreign language acquisition. A second problem was that a central aspect of the contrastive program, i.e. the writing of comprehensive contrastive grammars for language pairs, was hardly ever properly implemented. Finally, there was the problem of finding a place for contrastive linguistics within the spectrum of language comparison, relative to other comparative approaches to linguistic analysis. It is the third of these issues that is addressed by the present article. It will be shown that only by relating contrastive linguistics to other subfields of comparative linguistics and by delimiting it from them will we obtain a clear picture of its agenda, its potential and its limits.

This paper presents a detailed analysis of reflexive nominal compounds like self-assessment in English and their counterparts in nine other languages, whose number and use has strongly increased in these languages over the last several decades. The first component of these compounds is shown to be related to intensifiers like selbst in German and its cognate form self- in English, whose multiple uses also underlie different semantic types of reflexive compounds (self-help vs. self-control), whereas the second component typically derives from transitive verbs. Among the central problems discussed in this paper are the question of the productivity of these compounds and the possibility of deriving their meaning in a compositional fashion. The parameters of variation manifested by the sample of languages under comparison in this pilot study concern inter alia the form of the intensifier (native or borrowed, one or two), the semantic type, and the lexical category of the resultant compound.

INTRODUCTION The complexity of acute and chronic inflammatory processes may either lead to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) and/or prostate cancer. Obviously, various tissue cells are activated by chemokines via different chemotaxin receptors which then trigger subsequent processes in angiogenesis, cellular growth, and extravasation as well as neoplasia. METHODS Using the surgically obtained tissue of patients (n = 36) with BPH or prostate carcinoma (PCA), we studied among others the expression of chemokines (Rantes, IL-8), chemotaxin receptors (CXCR-3 and -4, CCR-3, CCR-5), of matrixmetalloproteinases (MMP-2 and 9), of Toll-like (TL) receptors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 and of the inducible cyclooxygenase-2 (cox-2) by RT-PCR. Further support for the different properties of tissue from PCA was obtained using two different PCA cell lines (PC3 = androgen resistant cell) or LNCAP cells (androgen sensitive) with emphasis on IL-8, Il-6, and PGE2 release. Cell lines were stimulated with either the tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and lipopolysacharide (LPS) over time. In addition to cytokine release, the quantification of mRNA by lightcycler for cox-2, IL-6, and IL-8 was performed on these cell lines. RESULTS Remarkable differences in expression were obtained by RT-PCR when BPH tissue versus PCA was analyzed. Expression of CXCR-1 after incubation with LPS and TNF-α showed time-dependent differences for androgen-sensitive LNCAP as compared to androgen-resistant PC-3 cells. TNF-α incubation leads to a time-dependent induction of cox-2 expression unlike to activation with LPS. Differences with regard to cox-2, IL-6, and IL-8 expression were seen by quantitative lightcycler analysis. Significant differences were also observed when TL receptors 4, 5, 7, and 9 were analyzed which were significantly expressed in BPH- as compared to PCA-tissue. CONCLUSIONS Our data clearly demonstrate that various inflammatory and cell biological cascades are involved which either lead to BPH or can be linked to the development of PCA. The exact cell biological mechanisms may provide novel therapeutic options in the treatment of both diseases. © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

1. Acknowledgements 2. Introduction (by Hancil, Sylvie) 3. Part 1. General issues 4. Acquisition Based and Usage Based Explanations of Grammaticalisation. An Integrative Approach (by Ohl, Peter) 5. Grammaticalization and Explanation (by Appelbaum, Irene) 6. The perfectivization of the English perfect: is it a case of grammaticalization, after all? The challenge of pluricentrality (by Walker, Jim) 7. Explaining language structure: On categorial misbehavior in Walman (Papua New Guinea) (by Heine, Bernd) 8. Toward a constructional framework for research on language change (by Traugott, Elizabeth Closs) 9. Part 2. Case studies 10. Grammaticalization of Polish mental predicate prefixes (by Kokorniak, Iwona) 11. More Thoughts on the Grammaticalization of Personal Pronouns: Evidence from the history of Japanese (by Shibasaki, Reijirou) 12. The grammaticalization of nome in the Eastern Abruzzese dialect Ortese: Fromindefinite pronoun to inflectional marker? (by Russi, Cinzia) 13. The different developments of progressive aspect markers be in the middle/midst of and be in the process of V-ing: mechanisms of change (by Van Rompae, Tine) 14. Sequentiality in dialogue as a trigger for grammaticalization (by Haselow, Alexander) 15. The final particle but in British English: an instance of cooptation and grammaticalization at work (by Hancil, Sylvie) 16. "Final hanging but" in American English: Where a formal coordinator meets a functional subordinator (by Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita) 17. Author index 18. Subject index

Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1982)

1. The Germanic Languages 2. Gothic and the Reconstruction of Proto-German 3. Old and Middle Scandinavian 4. Old and Middle Continental West Germanic 5. Old and Middle English 6. Icelandic 7. Faroese 8. Norwegian 9. Swedish 10. Danish 11. German 12. Yiddish 13. Pennysylvanian German 14. Dutch 15. Afrikaans 16. English 17. Frisian 18. Germanic Creoles

SUMMARY Based on some well-established insights into the historical development of English and on a broad typological survey of the relevant domain, an analysis of the development of reflexive anaphors is provided, which raises and answers a number of new questions. The traditional assumption that reflexive anaphors in English developed as a result of combining personal pronouns with the intensifier self is put on solid foundations by a semantic analysis of intensifiers which makes such a development plausible. We argue that the development of complex reflexives in English is also semantically motivated insofar as it started in the context of “unexpected co-reference”, i.e. in the object position of other-directed predicates. The further propagation of this development is in complete harmony with some well-known typological hierarchies: 3rd person > 1st/2nd person; direct object > indirect object; argument > adjunct. Our analysis, which assigns the central role in the development and renovation of reflexive anaphors to intensifiers, also throws some interesting light on the form, meaning and distribution of anaphors, intensifiers and so-called ‘locally-free reflexives’ in Modern English, as well as on some theoretical controversies. RÉSUMÉ Nous allons tenter une analyse de l’évolution historique des pronoms réfléchis en anglais sur la base de quelques faits historiques connus ainsi que sur celle d’une vaste enquête typologique dans le domaine en question. Dans le cadre de cette analyse des questions d’un genre nouveau seront posées auxquelles nous allons essayer de répondre. L’opinion fréquemment énoncée selon laquelle les pronoms réfléchis se développeraient à partir d’une fusion de pronoms personnels et d’intensificateurs (ae. self) reçoit une base solide par une analyse sémantique des intensificateurs qui rend plausible une telle évolution. Le développement des pronoms réfléchis complexes en anglais est motivé selon nous sémantiquement entre autres par le fait que l’on observe ce phénomène d’abord dans le contexte d’une ‘co-référence inattendue’, c’est-à-dire dans les positions d’objets de ‘außengerichteter Prädikate’. La propagation ultérieure de cette innovation correspond aux prévisions d’hiérarchies typologiques connues: 3e pers. > 1ère/2e pers.; c.o.d. > c.o.i.; actant > circonstant. Notre analyse, qui attribue le rôle principal aux intensificateurs quant au développement et à l’innovation de la réfléxivité, jette une lumière différente sur quelques controverses théoriques ainsi que sur les propriétés des pronoms réfléchis, les intensificateurs et les soi-disant pronoms ‘réfléchis localement libres’ (réfléchis indirect). ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Auf der Grundlage von bekannten historischen Fakten sowie einer breit angelegten typologischen Bestandsaufnahme in dem relevanten Bereich wird eine Analyse der historischen Entwicklung von Reflexivpronomina im Englischen entwickelt, die neue Fragen stellt und beantwortet. Die häufig geäußerte Auffassung, daß sich Reflexiva durch eine Fusion von Personalpronomina und Intensifikatoren (dt. selbst; ae. self) entwickelten, erhält eine solide Fundierung durch eine semantische Analyse von Intensifikatoren, die eine solche Entwicklung plausibel macht. Die Entwicklung von komplexen Reflexiva im Englischen ist unserer Auffassung nach auch insofern semantisch motiviert, als zunächst im Kontext von “unerwarteter Ko-referenz”, d.h. in Objektpositionen von außengerichteten Prädikaten zu beobachten ist. Die weitere Verbreitung dieser Innovation entspricht den Voraussagen von bekannten typologischen Hierarchien: 3. Person > 1./2. Person; direktes Objekt > indirektes Objekt; Argument > Adjunkt. Unsere Analyse, die den Intensifikatoren die zentrale Rolle in der Entwicklung und Erneuerung von Reflexivität zuweist, wirft auch neues Licht auf die Eigenschaften von Reflexipronomina, Intensifikatoren und die sog. ‘lokal freien Reflexiva’ im heutigen Englisch, ebenso wie auf einige theoretische Kontroversen.

The article discusses the distribution and meaning of ‘locally free reflexives’ (‘untriggered reflexives’, ‘viewpoint reflexives’, ‘perspective logophors’) in English. After a thorough assessment of the contextual constraints on the use of such locally free self-forms, three analyses are discussed and compared: (a) the view that such self-forms are bound by a minimal subject of consciousness within their discourse (Zribi-Hertz, 1989); (b) the view that the relevant forms exhibit essentially the same distribution as pronouns and that the choice between the two is motivated by discourse considerations (Reinhart & Reuland, 1993); and (c) the view that locally free self-forms are intensifiers without pronominal heads (Baker, 1995). It is shown that the third analysis is by far the most adequate one, and that both the distribution and the meaning of such expressions can be explained on the basis of this analysis if it is combined with a suitable semantic analysis of intensifiers.

Background: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a potent angiogenic protein with a selective mitogenic effect on endothelial cells known to be involved in many normal and pathological processes. Coexpression of VEGF and its receptor flt-1 has been reported in different types of malignant tumors. Objective: In the present study we investigated the expression of VEGF and flt-1 in 90 cases of diffuse malignant pleural mesotheliomas. Methods: VEGF and flt-1 expression was analyzed by immunohistochemistry and non-radioactive in situ hybridization. Results: VEGF expression was visualized immunohistochemically in tumor cells. flt-1 expression correlated with histological differentiation (p < 0.013). Furthermore, expression of flt-1 was detected in tumor cells, macrophages and microvessels adjacent to tumor cells. VEGF and flt-1 expression were confirmed by in situ hybridization. Conclusion: There was a statistically significant correlation between VEGF and flt-1 expression (p < 0.001). The observed coexpression of VEGF and flt-1 possibly suggests a potential autocrine loop for malignant pleural mesothelioma cells.

Das Programm der Kontrastiven Linguistik wurde in den sechziger und siebziger Jahren mit der Zielsetzung formuliert, durch systematische Einbeziehung von Gemeinsamkeiten und Kontrasten zwischen Muttersprache und zu erlernender Fremdsprache den Fremdsprachenunterricht effektiver zu gestalten. Nach einigen Jahren enthusiastischer Aufnahme und Bearbeitung setzte jedoch eine allgemeine Ernuchterung und Enttauschung ein, so dass dieses Programm eher eine bescheidene Randexistenz im Rahmen der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft fuhrte und erst in den letzten Jahren unter etwas veranderten Vorzeichen wieder aufgenommen wurde. Drei Grunde waren meiner Meinung nach fur diese Desillusionierung verantwortlich: (a) Die Kontrastive Linguistik wurde als Theorie des Zweitspracherwerbs gesehen und somit mit vollig unrealistischen Erwartungen verknupft, (b) In der Erstellung der deskriptiven Grundlagen dieses Programms, d.h. in der Erstellung umfassender vergleichender Grammatiken fur relevante Sprachenpaare, wurden nur wenig uberzeugende Fortschritte gemacht, (c) Es fehlte eine Standortbestimmung der Kontrastiven Linguistik im Rahmen der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft, aus der deutlich hervorgeht, was die Moglichkeiten und Grenzen dieses Typs von Sprachvergleich sind. Nachdem sich heute die Situation bezuglich der beiden ersten Punkte erheblich verbessert hat (u.a. auch durch einschlagige Arbeiten des IDS), widme ich mich in meinem Beitrag dem dritten Punkt: Durch eine systematische Gegenuberstellung der Kontrastiven Sprachwissenschaft mit den anderen Spielarten der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft sollen die Erkenntnismoglichkeiten und Grenzen der verschiedenen Ansatze zum Vergleich von Sprachen bestimmt werden, so dass die Kontrastive Linguistik durch diese Gegenuberstellung klare Konturen erhalt. Im Rahmen dieser Gegenuberstellung wird eine Vielzahl von Beobachtungen zum Deutschen aus der Sicht des Englischen und anderer Sprachen gemacht. Fur die Kontrastive Linguistik (KL) ergibt sich abschliesend das folgende Profil: — Synchronie: Die KL ist primar synchron orientiert. — Granularitat: Ihr Gegenstand sind feinkornige Beobachtungen zu Kontrasten zwischen Sprachen. — Skopus: Die KL beschaftigt sich vor allem mit umfassenden Vergleichen von Sprachpaaren. — Perspektivierung: Ihr Mehrwert besteht u.a. darin, dass eine Sprache aus der Perspektive einer anderen beschrieben wird. Aus dieser Perspektivenwahl ergeben sich neue Beobachtungen. — Zielsetzung: Ihre Zielsetzung sind weitreichende, falsifizierbare Verallgemeinerungen uber Kontraste. Die Wahl eines theoretischen Rahmens ist sekundar.

1. Table of contents 2. Preface 3. Introduction (by Stathi, Ekaterini) 4. part I Basic questions 5. On some problem areas in grammaticalization studies (by Diewald, Gabriele) 6. Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English (by Trousdale, Graeme) 7. Reconsidering erosion in grammaticalization: Evidence from cliticization (by Schiering, Rene) 8. Grammaticalization, subjectification and objectification (by Kranich, Svenja) 9. Degrammaticalization: Three common controversies (by Norde, Muriel) 10. Degrammaticalization and obsolescent morphology: Evidence from Slavonic (by Willis, David) 11. part II Grammaticalization and the explanation of language change 12. An analogical approach to grammaticalization (by Fischer, Olga) 13. Does grammaticalisation need analogy?: Different pathways on the 'pronoun/agreement marker'-cline (by De Vogelaer, Gunther) 14. What grammaticalisation can reveal about same-subject control (by Ziegeler, Debra) 15. How the Latin neuter pronominal forms became markers of non-individuation in Spanish (by Stark, Elisabeth) 16. part III Case studies of micro-processes of grammaticalization 17. The Grammaticalization of the German adjectives lauter (and eitel) (by Gehweiler, Elke) 18. Is German gehoren an auxiliary?: The grammaticalization of the construction gehoren + participle II (by Stathi, Ekaterini) 19. Micro-processes of grammaticalization: The case of Italian l'un l'altro (by Vezzosi, Letizia) 20. List of contributors 21. Index