DOCSLIB.ORG

The Case Mirror

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Case Mirror The Case Mirror Peter de Swart Contact Address: PIONIER Project Case Cross-linguistically Department of Linguistics University of Nijmegen P.O. Box 9103 6500 HD Nijmegen The Netherlands www.kun.nl/pionier [email protected] The Case Mirror Peter de Swart Master’s Thesis General Linguistics Faculty of Arts University of Nijmegen August 2003 Peter de Swart 9938338 1st supervisor: dr Helen de Hoop 2nd supervisor: prof. dr Pieter Muysken Dank Aan de medewerkers van het PIONIER project “Case Cross-linguistically” Aan Miriam Butt en Andrej Malchukov voor hun nuttige commentaar op een eerdere versie van deze scriptie. Aan Pieter Muysken, dat hij tweede begeleider wilde zijn en voor het waardevolle commentaar op een eerdere versie. Aan Helen de Hoop, voor de prettige samenwerking, de enthousiaste discussies en het immer relevante commentaar. Verder voor de ongekende mogelijkheden die ze me het afgelopen jaar gaf om me te ontwikkelen in de taalwetenschap. Aan mijn moeder zonder wie grote delen van deze scriptie nog steeds handgeschreven zouden zijn. Corien, Emar, Marieke and Henri voor de zomerse discussie en verwarring over dankwoorden, ergativiteit en lijdende vrouwen. Table of Contents General Introduction 1 Chapter 1 Optimality Theory 3 1.1 Conflicting Constraints: The Architecture of an OT-grammar 3 1.1.1 The Architecture of an OT-grammar 4 1.1.1.1 The Generator 4 1.1.1.2 Constraints 5 1.1.1.3 The Evaluator and the Optimal Output 5 1.1.2 The Metalanguage of Optimality Theory 6 1.2 Markedness 7 1.2.1 Harmonic Alignment 7 1.2.2 Local Conjunction 8 Chapter 2 Differential Object Marking 11 2.1 Differential Object Marking Cross-linguistically 11 2.2 An OT-model for Differential Object Marking: Aissen (2000) 13 2.2.1 Animacy and Definiteness 13 2.2.2 Markedness Reversal, Iconicity and Economy 14 2.2.3 Deriving Constraints 16 2.2.3.1 Animacy 16 2.2.3.2 Definiteness 17 2.2.3.3 Iconicity and Economy 18 2.2.4 One Dimensional DOM 19 2.2.4.1 Definiteness 20 2.2.4.2 Animacy 20 2.2.5 Two Dimensional DOM 21 2.3 Discussion 25 2.3.1 Local Conjunction of ‘Star Zero’ 25 2.3.2 Other Features besides Animacy and Definiteness 25 2.3.3 How Semantic are the Features? 27 2.3.4 Case Alternations 29 2.3.5 Case Marking of Prototypical Objects 31 2.3.6 The Unmarked Object 31 2.4 Concluding Remarks 34 Chapter 3 Differential Subject Marking 35 3.1 Subjects Cross-linguistically: a short overview 35 3.1.1 Subjects in Coast Salish 35 3.1.2 Split Ergativity in Dyirbal 38 3.2 An OT-model for Subject Choice: Aissen (1999) 39 3.2.1 Subjects and Syntactic Markedness 39 3.2.2 The Dimensions of Subject Choice 40 3.2.2.1 Universal or Language Specific? 40 3.2.2.2 Relevant Dimensions and their Markedness Reversal 41 3.2.2.3 Deriving Constraints 41 3.2.2.3.1 Person 41 3.2.2.3.2 Semantic Role 43 3.2.2.3.3 Discourse Prominence 43 3.2.3 The Expression of Markedness 44 3.2.3.1 Voice 44 3.2.3.1.1 Lushootseed 44 3.2.3.1.2 Lummi 45 3.2.3.1.3 Squamish 46 3.2.3.2 Morphological Markedness 47 3.2.3.3 Case Marking: Split Ergativity 48 3.2.3.3.1 Dyirbal 48 3.2.3.4 Direction 49 3.3 Discussion 50 3.3.1 Local Conjunction of ‘Star Zero’ 51 3.3.2 Differential Subject Marking in Transitive Construction 51 3.3.3 Differential Subject Marking in Intransitive Constructions 53 3.4 Concluding Remarks 55 Chapter 4 Modelling Differential Case Marking 57 4.1 The Interaction of Aissen’s Frameworks 57 4.1.1 The Implicit Models in Aissen’s Frameworks 57 4.1.2 Subject-Object Dependencies 60 4.2 Transitivity and the Unmarked Object 62 4.2.1 The Transitivity Parameters of Hopper & Thompson 62 4.2.1 Transitive Constructions 64 4.2.3 Markedness of Structure 65 4.2.3.1 Semantic Transitivity 66 4.2.4 Language Particular Markedness 68 4.3 Semantic Distinctness as a Trigger for Differential Case Marking 69 4.3.1 Minimal Semantic Distinctness 70 4.3.2 Properties of the Arguments 72 4.3.3 Properties of the Predicate 75 4.3.4 Other Properties 77 4.3.5 Differential Case Marking and Semantic Distinctness in Hindi 77 4.3.5.1 Tense Split and Subject Marking 78 4.3.5.2 Object Marking 79 4.3.6 Summary 82 4.4 Case Marking as a Mirror 83 4.4.1 Bidirectional Optimality Theory: Blutner (2000) 83 4.4.2 The Constraints 86 4.4.2.1 Constraints on Form 87 4.4.2.2 Constraints on Meaning 87 4.4.3 Language Particular Constraint Rankings 88 4.4.3.1 Spanish 88 4.4.3.2 Malayalam 90 Conclusions 95 References 97 List of Abbreviations 1 First person NNOM Non-nominative 2 Second person NOM Nominative 3 Third person NSPEC Nonspecific A Transitive subject OBJ Object marker ABL Ablative OBL Oblique ABS Absolutive OJ Object ACC Accusative P Transitive object ADEL Adelessive PART Partitive AGT Agent PAT Patient ANIM Animate PAST Past CONN Connective PERF Perfective DAT Dative PL Plural DEF Definite PN Proper noun ERG Ergative PREP Preposition F Feminine PRES Present FUT Future PRO Pronoun GEN Genitive S Intransitive subject GR Grammatical relation SG Singular HUM Human SPEC Specific INAN Inanimate SIM Imperative singular INDEF Indefinite SU Subject INF Infinitive SUB Subjunctive INST Instrumental TRANS Transitive INTR Intransitive V Verb LOC Locative VOL Volitional 1 General Introduction General Introduction Some languages with overt case marking on their subjects and objects do not mark all their arguments in the same way. They only mark a subset of their objects and subjects and often differ in which subset. This phenomenon is called differential case marking and it is this phenomenon that is the subject of this thesis. In the example in (1) we see an example of a language that employs different case marking on its direct objects depending on the features of the argument that functions as the direct object. (1) HINDI [Indo-Aryan; Mohanan 1990] h a. ilaa-ne haar-ko ut aayaa Ila.ERG necklace.ACC lift.PAST ‘Ila lifted up the necklace.’ h b. ilaa-ne haar ut aayaa Ila.ERG necklace.NOM lift.PAST ‘Ila lifted up a/the necklace.’ The Hindi examples in (1) show differential case marking on the object haar 'necklace'. If this object has a definite interpretation the accusative form haarko is used, but when the object is not specified for definiteness, i.e. it can either be definite or indefinite, the nominative form haar is used. As we will see similar patterns exist for the use of case marking on subject arguments. In this thesis I focus on patterns of differential case marking. I examine which semantic features play a role in these systems and which morphosyntactic devices are used to mark subjects and objects. Central is the relation between markedness of form and markedness of meaning. In the first chapter I introduce the framework of Optimality Theory which is used in the analyses in this thesis. Optimality Theory describes linguistic phenomena in terms of conflicting constraints. I set out the general principles of the theory and discuss some particular formal mechanisms. The second chapter deals with differential case marking of direct objects. First I introduce the phenomenon of differential object marking with some examples from the world’s languages. This short overview is followed by the General Introduction 2 outline of an Optimality Theoretic analysis of differential object marking as formulated in Aissen (2000). Her model is formulated on the basis of the principle of ‘markedness reversal’ which states that what is unmarked for the object is marked for the subject and vice versa. I end the chapter by signalling some problems for this particular analysis. In chapter 3 I continue the discussion of differential case marking systems by focussing on the different ways in which subjects are encoded in the different languages of the world. I start with some examples of differential subject marking in Lummi, a Salish language, and the Australian language Dyirbal. This introduction is followed by an Optimality Theoretic analysis again formulated by Judith Aissen (1999). This chapter also end with a discussion of this formalization in which some of the shortcomings of the model are highlighted. The fourth and final chapter focuses on the development of a new formal model of differential case marking patterns. First, I discuss how the two models discussed in chapter 2 and 3 are related to each other. We will see that it is not sufficient to have two separated models for differential case marking of objects and subjects, but that one single model is needed in which the features of both subject and object are taken into account. I continue by looking at the role semantic and morphosyntactic structures play in differential case marking systems. I show which alternations in semantic features are relevant in describing the alternations we find in morphosyntactic structures. I focus on the relation between markedness of form and markedness of meaning. A relation, which, as I will show, is assumed in the formalization developed by Aissen (1999, 2000), but which does not follow naturally from her system. I propose the principle of ‘minimal semantic distinctness’ which states that the two arguments of a transitive predicate must be minimally distinct.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Animacy and Alienability: a Reconsideration of English
    Running head: ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 1 Animacy and Alienability A Reconsideration of English Possession Jaimee Jones A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Spring 2016 ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ Jaeshil Kim, Ph.D. Thesis Chair ______________________________ Paul Müller, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Jeffrey Ritchey, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Brenda Ayres, Ph.D. Honors Director ______________________________ Date ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 3 Abstract Current scholarship on English possessive constructions, the s-genitive and the of- construction, largely ignores the possessive relationships inherent in certain English compound nouns. Scholars agree that, in general, an animate possessor predicts the s- genitive while an inanimate possessor predicts the of-construction. However, the current literature rarely discusses noun compounds, such as the table leg, which also express possessive relationships. However, pragmatically and syntactically, a compound cannot be considered as a true possessive construction. Thus, this paper will examine why some compounds still display possessive semantics epiphenomenally. The noun compounds that imply possession seem to exhibit relationships prototypical of inalienable possession such as body part, part whole, and spatial relationships. Additionally, the juxtaposition of the possessor and possessum in the compound construction is reminiscent of inalienable possession in other languages. Therefore, this paper proposes that inalienability, a phenomenon not thought to be relevant in English, actually imbues noun compounds whose components exhibit an inalienable relationship with possessive semantics.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Demonstrative Pronoun and Demonstrative Determiner This in Upper-Level Student Writing: a Case Study
    English Language Teaching; Vol. 8, No. 5; 2015 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education The Use of Demonstrative Pronoun and Demonstrative Determiner this in Upper-Level Student Writing: A Case Study Katharina Rustipa1 1 Faculty of Language and Cultural Studies, Stikubank University (UNISBANK) Semarang, Indonesia Correspondence: Katharina Rustipa, UNISBANK Semarang, Jl. Tri Lomba Juang No.1 Semarang 50241, Indonesia. Tel: 622-4831-1668. E-mail: [email protected] Received: January 20, 2015 Accepted: February 26, 2015 Online Published: April 23, 2015 doi:10.5539/elt.v8n5p158 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n5p158 Abstract Demonstrative this is worthy to investigate because of the role of this as a common cohesive device in academic writing. This study attempted to find out the variables underlying the realization of demonstrative this in graduate-student writing of Semarang State University, Indonesia. The data of the study were collected by asking three groups of students (first semester, second semester, third semester students) to write an essay. The collected data were analyzed by identifying, classifying, calculating, and interpreting. Interviewing to several students was also done to find out the reasons underlying the use of attended and unattended this. Comparing the research results to those of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Paper (MICUSP) as proficient graduate-student writing was done in order to know the position of graduate-student writing of Semarang State University in reference to MICUSP. The conclusion of the research results is that most occurrences of demonstrative this are attended and these occurrences are stable across levels, similar to those in MICUSP.
    [Show full text]
  • Determiners in Various Resources: Grammar Books, Coursebooks And
    Masaryk University Faculty of Education Department of English Language and Literature Determiners in various resources: Grammar books, coursebooks and online sources compared Bachelor thesis Brno 2016 Supervisor: Author: doc. PhDr. Renata Povolná, Ph.D. Pavla Fryštáková Declaration: „Prohlašuji, že jsem závěrečnou bakalářskou práci vypracovala samostatně, s využitím pouze citovaných literárních pramenů, dalších informací a zdrojů v souladu s Disciplinárním řádem pro studenty Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity a se zákonem č. 121/2000 SB., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o měně některých zákonů (autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů.“ V Brně dne 16. 3. 2016 ………………………………. Pavla Fryštáková Acknowledgement: I would like to thank doc. PhDr. Renata Povolná, Ph.D., for help and advice provided during the supervision of my bachelor thesis. Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5 2 Reference to determiners in grammar books ....................................................... 7 2.1 Grammar books referring to determiners as one topic ....................................... 7 2.1.1 Swan (1996) ................................................................................................ 7 2.1.2 Leech and Svartvik (1975) .......................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Greenbaum and Quirk (1990) ................................................................... 16 2.1.4
    [Show full text]
  • The Definite Determiner in Early Middle English
    43 The defi nite determiner in Early Middle English: What happened with þe? Cynthia L. Allen Australian National University Abstract This paper offers new data bearing on the question of when English developed a defi nite article, distinct from the distal demonstrative. It focuses primarily on one criterion that has been used in dating this development, namely the inability of þe (Modern English the, the refl ex of the demonstrative se) to be used as a pronoun. I argue that this criterion is not a satisfactory one and propose a treatment of þe as a form which could occupy either the head D of DP or the specifi er of DP. This is an approach consistent with Crisma’s (2011) position that a defi nite article emerged within the Old English (OE) period. I offer a new piece of evidence supporting Crisma’s demonstration of a difference between OE poetry and the prose of the ninth century and later. 1. Introduction: dating the defi nite article A long-standing problem in historical English syntax is dating the emergence of the defi nite article. A major diffi culty here, noted by Johanna Wood (2003) and others, is defi ning exactly what we mean by an ‘article.’ Millar (2000:304, note 11) comments that we might say that Modern English does not have a ‘true’ article, but only a ‘weakly demonstrative defi nite determiner’ on Himmelmann’s (1997) proposed path of development for defi nite articles. However, no one can doubt that English has moved along this path from a demonstrative determiner to something that has become more purely grammatical, with loss of deictic properties.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 the Major Parts of Speech
    6 The Major Parts of Speech KEY CONCEPTS Parts of Speech Major Parts of Speech Nouns Verbs Adjectives Adverbs Appendix: prototypes INTRODUCTION In every language we find groups of words that share grammatical charac- teristics. These groups are called “parts of speech,” and we examine them in this chapter and the next. Though many writers onlanguage refer to “the eight parts of speech” (e.g., Weaver 1996: 254), the actual number of parts of speech we need to recognize in a language is determined by how fine- grained our analysis of the language is—the more fine-grained, the greater the number of parts of speech that will be distinguished. In this book we distinguish nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs (the major parts of speech), and pronouns, wh-words, articles, auxiliary verbs, prepositions, intensifiers, conjunctions, and particles (the minor parts of speech). Every literate person needs at least a minimal understanding of parts of speech in order to be able to use such commonplace items as diction- aries and thesauruses, which classify words according to their parts (and sub-parts) of speech. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary (4th edition, p. xxxi) distinguishes adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions, definite ar- ticles, indefinite articles, interjections, nouns, prepositions, pronouns, and verbs. It also distinguishes transitive, intransitive, and auxiliary verbs. Writ- ers and writing teachers need to know about parts of speech in order to be able to use and teach about style manuals and school grammars. Regardless of their discipline, teachers need this information to be able to help students expand the contexts in which they can effectively communicate.
    [Show full text]
  • Coding Practices Used in the Project Optimal Typology of Determiner Phrases
    Coding practices used in the project Optimal Typology of Determiner Phrases Gregory Garretson This document is one section of the coding manual used by the project Optimal Typology of Determiner Phrases, based at Boston University. It is being made available due to popular demand. If you have questions about the rest of the manual, or the contents of this section, please contact Gregory Garretson at [email protected] or [email protected]. Please cite this document as follows: Garretson, Gregory. 2004. Coding practices used in the project Optimal Typology of Determiner Phrases. Unpublished manuscript, Boston University, Boston, MA. http://npcorpus.bu.edu/html/documentation/index.html. Contents 5.1 General practices 5.2 Construction type 5.3 Which examples to count? 5.4 Expression type 5.5 Definiteness 5.6 Animacy 5.7 Weight 5.0 Applying tags to the examples This section of the coding manual details the policies we have adopted in adding tags to the examples, once they have been bracketed. Because of the wondrous variety of language, coding a corpus is not nearly as straightforward as we might like. This section will help you to make the often difficult decisions about which tags to apply when. Section 5.1 gives general guidance for coding; Sections 5.2 and on discuss various classes of tags in detail. Starting in Section 5.2, each section will begin with a list of the tags discussed in that section, so you can easily find the discussion of a given tag by looking at these lines. They look like this: [Tags discussed in this section: INCL, EXCL, PND, PWD, CMPD, IDIOM, NAME, PART, PART2, DINS, SORT] Please remember that in addition to the discussion in this section, there is a brief description of each tag given in Section 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Classifiers Determiners Yicheng Wu Adams Bodomo
    REMARKS AND REPLIES 487 Classifiers ϶ Determiners Yicheng Wu Adams Bodomo Cheng and Sybesma (1999, 2005) argue that classifiers in Chinese are equivalent to a definite article. We argue against this position on empirical grounds, drawing attention to the fact that semantically, syntactically, and functionally, Chinese classifiers are not on the same footing as definite determiners. We also show that compared with Cheng and Sybesma’s ClP analysis of Chinese NPs (in particular, Cantonese NPs, on which their proposal crucially relies), a consistent DP analysis is not only fully justified but strongly supported. Keywords: classifiers, open class, definite determiners, closed class, Mandarin, Cantonese 1 Introduction While it is often proposed that the category DP exists not only in languages with determiners such as English but also in languages without determiners such as Chinese (see, e.g., Pan 1990, Tang 1990a,b, Li 1998, 1999, Cheng and Sybesma 1999, 2005, Simpson 2001, 2005, Simpson and Wu 2002, Wu 2004), there seems to be no consensus about which element (if any) in Chinese is the possible counterpart of a definite determiner like the in English. In their influential 1999 article with special reference to Mandarin and Cantonese, Cheng and Sybesma (hereafter C&S) declare that ‘‘both languages have the equivalent of a definite article, namely, classifiers’’ (p. 522).1 Their treatment of Chinese classifiers as the counterpart of definite determiners is based on the following arguments: (a) both can serve the individualizing/singularizing function; (b) both can serve the deictic function. These arguments and the conclusion drawn from them have been incorporated into C&S 2005, C&S’s latest work on the classifier system in Chinese.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Noun Phrases Pronouns
    Chapter 3 Noun Phrases Now that we have established something about the structure of verb phrases, let's move on to noun phrases (NPs). A noun phrase is a noun or pronoun head and all of its modifiers (or the coordination of more than one NP--to be discussed in Chapter 6). Some nouns require the presence of a determiner as a modifier. Most pronouns are typically not modified at all and no pronoun requires the presence of a determiner. We'll start with pronouns because they are a relatively simple closed class. Pronouns English has several categories of pronouns. Pronouns differ in the contexts they appear in and in the grammatical information they contain. Pronouns in English can contrast in person, number, gender, and case. We've already discussed person and number, but to review: 1. English has three persons o first person, which is the speaker or the group that includes the speaker; o second person, which is the addressee or the group of addressees; o third person, which is anybody or anything else 2. English has two numbers o singular, which refers to a singular individual or undifferentiated group or mass; o plural, which refers to more than one individual. The difference between we and they is a difference in person: we is first person and they is third person. The difference between I and we is a difference in number: I is singular and we is plural. The other two categories which pronouns mark are gender and case. Gender is the system of marking nominal categories.
    [Show full text]
  • Years 4 Grammar: Determiners
    Years 4 Grammar: Determiners Learning From Home Activity Booklet Statutory Activity Sheet Page Requirements Number Pupils should Determiner Display 2 be taught to use and understand Desperate Daisy 3 the terminology Determiner ‘determiner’. Quantifier Quiz 4 Interrogative and 5 Demonstrative Arthur’s Article 6 Determiner Sentences 7 A Parent’s Guide to 8 Determiners A note to parents: This booklet is designed to support and reinforce work completed in school about determiners. If you would first like to review the term determiner, please see the following PowerPoint on the Twinkl website: http://www.twinkl.co.uk/resource/t2-e-1817-planit-y4-spag-lesson-pack-determiners Page 1 of 8 Determiners Display Year 4 Grammar: Determiners Miss Jones is making a display all about ‘determiners’ to help her class understand what they are. However, she has dropped all the determiner cards on the floor. Oops! Please help her by placing the determiner cards in the correct column on the display. what his her our which your more those their a less any this an many my the few four these that some Definite and Possessive Interrogative Demonstrative Quantifiers indefinite Determiners Determiners Determiners articles Hint: Check your answers using the answer booklet and correct any you may have placed in the table incorrectly. Then, use this page to help you complete the other activities within the booklet. Page 2 of 8 Desperate Daisy Determiner Year 4 Grammar: Determiners Desperate Daisy Determiner is rounding up possessive determiners for the rodeo. Help her by using your lasso to circle the possessive determiners in each sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • Possessive Nominal Expressions in GB: DP Vs. NP
    Possessive Nominal Expressions in GB: DP vs. NP Daniel W. Bruhn December 8, 2006 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Since Steven Abney's 1987 MIT dissertation, The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect, the so- called DP Hypothesis has gained acceptance in the eld of Government and Binding (GB) syntax. This hypothesis proposes that a nominal expression1 is headed by a determiner that takes a noun phrase as its complement. The preexisting NP Hypothesis, on the other hand, diagrams nominal expressions as headed by nouns, sometimes taking a determiner phrase as a specier.2 This basic dierence is illustrated in the following trees for the nominal expression the dog: NP DP DP N0 D0 D0 N0 D0 NP dog the D0 N0 the N0 dog The number of dierent types of nominal expressions that could serve as the basis for an NP vs. DP Hypothesis comparison is naturally quite large, and to address every one would be quite a feat for this squib. I have therefore chosen to concentrate on possessive nominal expressions because they exhibit a certain array of properties that pose challenges for both hypotheses, and will present these according to the following structure: Section 2.1 (Possessive) nominals posing no problem for either hypothesis Section 2.2 Problem nominals for the NP Hypothesis Section 2.3 How the DP Hypothesis accounts for the problem nominals of the NP Hypothesis Section 2.4 Problem nominals for the DP Hypothesis Section 2.5 How the NP Hypothesis accounts for the problem nominals of the DP Hypothesis By problem nominals, I mean those which expose some weakeness in the ability of either hypothesis to: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The German Prepositional Phrase in Second Language Acquisition a Research Report
    The German Prepositional Phrase in Second Language Acquisition A Research Report Katharina Turgay Abstract Due to their complex morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties, PPs in German are a challenge for acquisition, especially for children who learn German as their second language. This research report presents the results of an experiment conducted with Turkish and Italian speak- ing children in the process of acquiring German as an L2 to study the particular difficulties the complex nature of PPs poses for learners. The data drawn from the experiments is evaluated with respect to two pos- sible influence factors on the L2 acquisition: the L1 of the L2ers and the age that the learners had been at when they had their first contact with the target language. The results of the study suggest that both factors may have an influence on the L2 acquisition of the German PP,at least in some domains. Tendencies that the subjects’ L1 matters for the L2 acquisition are attested for many properties of the PP – the position of the preposi- tion and the cliticization of prepositions and determiners being the main exceptions. Regarding the relevance of the age of first contact, my data shows that the younger the children were when starting to acquire Ger- man, the better they perform. 1 Introduction In this paper, I will present the findings of my research on the German preposi- tional phrase in second language (L2) acquisition. Due to their complex mor- phological, syntactic, and semantic properties, prepositional phrases (PPs) al- ready raise challenges to children acquiring German as a first language (L1ers).
    [Show full text]
  • A Contrastive Study of Determiner Usage in EST Research Articles
    International Journal of Language Studies Volume 7, Number 1, January 2013, pp. 33-58 A contrastive study of determiner usage in EST research articles Peter MASTER, San Jose State University, USA This paper analyzes the use of determiners in the research article (RA) genre. Research articles representing eight fields within the domain of science and technology were selected from respected journals, two articles in each field, with a total of 65,729 words. Two research articles from TESOL, a field outside the realm of science and technology, were also selected for comparison. The determiners were identified and counted in each article. The total number of words per RA was determined by means of a computer word-count utility to guarantee accuracy and uniformity. The zero articles, which are not visible to the word-counting program, were added to the total word count for each article before the percentages of occurrence were calculated. The data obtained were analyzed not only in terms of the whole corpus but also with the life and physical sciences treated separately. It is concluded that, as far as determiner use is concerned, the research article as a genre appears to maintain its boundaries no matter what the topic while it differs in specific ways from fictional prose. The study also confirms that although the may appear to be the most frequent word, the zero article is the most frequent free morpheme in the English language. Keywords: Determiners; Predeterminers; Central Determiners; Postdeterminers; Genre; Research Article; RA; EST; Zero Article 1. Introduction The research article is the primary means of disseminating new scientific knowledge in the English language.
    [Show full text]