Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
- 2003 (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (2)
Language
- English (2)
- German (1)
- Portuguese (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Fremdsprachenlernen (4)
- Deutsch (3)
- Morphologie (2)
- Aspekt (1)
- Aspekt <Linguistik> (1)
- Englisch (1)
- Fremdsprachenpolitik (1)
- Japanisch (1)
- Präposition (1)
- Tschechisch (1)
Institute
- Extern (1)
Wenn wir die Situation des Fremdsprachenunterrichts in der Türkei betrachten, können wir sagen, dass drei westliche Sprachen, d.h. Englisch, Französisch und Deutsch, bis 1997 erst ab der Sekundarstufe I und II als Pflichtfach unterrichtet wurden. Im Jahre 1997 wurden mit der Verabschiedung eines neuen Gesetzes grundlegende Reformen im türkischen Schulwesen eingeleitet. Durch das neue Schulgesetz wurde die Pflichtschulzeit von fünf auf acht Jahre erhöht und dadurch auch eine wichtige Voraussetzung für den Anschluss an die EU-Standards geschaffen. Mit Beginn des Schuljahres 1997/98 trat eine weitere Neuregelung in Kraft. Seitdem beginnt der Fremdsprachenunterricht bereits in der 4. Jahrgangsstufe als Pflichtfach mit 2-4 Wochenstunden, in der 6. Klasse kommt eine zweite Fremdsprache als Wahlfach hinzu. Das Bildungsministerium hat für den Pflichtschulbereich Englisch als verbindliche erste Fremdsprache festgelegt. [...] Die türkischen Schulen sollten [...] den Schülern als zukünftige EU-Bürger wenigstens zwei europäische Fremdsprachen anbieten. Dann hätte die deutsche Sprache in der Türkei die Möglichkeit, sich neben dem Englischen als zweite Fremdsprache zu etablieren, weil sie im schulischen Bereich als zweite Fremdsprache eine wichtige Rolle spielt. Die Förderung der Mehrsprachigkeit schließt also immer auch die Förderung der deutschen Sprache ein. Aufgrund der intensiven Kontakte zwischen Deutschen und Türken, die vor etwa 700 Jahren begannen, besitzt die deutsche Sprache ein historisches Prestige in der Türkei. Im Folgenden möchten wir kurz auf die geschichtliche Entwicklung dieser Beziehung eingehen, um zu erklären, warum die deutsche Sprache in der Türkei eine besondere Stellung hat.
While both Japanese and English have a grammatic al form denoting the progressive, the two forms (te-iru & be+ing) interact differently with the inherent semantics of the verb to which they attach (Kindaichi, 1950; McClure, 1995; Shirai, 2000). Japanese change of state verbs are incompatible with a progressive interpretation, allowing only a resultative interpretation of V+ te-iru, while a progressive interpretation is preferred for activity predicates. English be+ing denotes a progressive interpretation regardless of the lexical semantics of the verb. The question that arises is how we can account for the fact that change of state verbs like dying can denote a progressive interpretation in English, but not in Japanese. While researchers such as Kageyama (1996) and Ogihara (1998, 1999) propose that the difference lies in the lexical semantics of the verbs themselves, others such as McClure (1995) have argued that the difference lies in the semantics of the grammatical forms, be+ing and te-iru. We present results from an experimental study of Japanese learners’ interpretation of the English progressive which provide support for McClure’s proposal. Results indicate that independent of verb type, learners had significantly more difficulty with the past progressive. We argue that knowledge of L2 semantics-syntax correspondences proceeds not on the basis of L1 lexical semantic knowledge, but on the basis of grammatical forms.
The focus of the present paper is on the difference between English and German learners‘ use of perfectivity and imperfectivity. The latter is expressed by means of suffixation (suffix -va-). In contrast, perfectivity is encoded either by suffixation (-nou-) or by prefixation (twenty different prefixes that mostly modify not only aspectual but also lexical properties of the verb).
In the native Czech data set, there is no significant difference between the number of imperfectively and perfectively marked verb forms. In the English data, imperfectively and perfectively marked verb forms are equally represented as well. However, German learners use significantly more perfective forms than English learners and Czech natives. When encoding perfectivity in Czech, German learners prefer to use prefixes to suffixes. Overall, English learners in comparison to German learners encode more perfectives by means of suffixation than prefixation.
These results suggest that German learners of Czech focus on prefixes expressing aspectual and lexical modification of the verb, while English learners rather pay attention to the aspectual opposition between perfective and imperfective. In a more abstract way, the German learner group focuses on the operations carried out on the left side from the verb stem while the English learner group concentrates on the operations performed on the right side qfrom the verb stem.
This sensitivity can be to certain degree motivated by the linguistic devices of the corresponding source languages: English learners of Czech use imperfectives mainly because English has marked fully grammatical form for the expression of imperfective aspect – the progressive -ing form. German learners, on the other hand, pay in Czech more attention to the prefixes, which like in German modify the lexical meaning of the verb. In this manner, Czech prefixes used for perfectivization function similar to the German verbal prefixes (such as ab-, ver-) modifying Aktionsart.
The present article analyzes the development of the system of spatial prepositions in the acquisition of German as a foreign language by Brazilian learners. The study is based on a corpus of written language data produced by students in the undergraduate course in Letras, collected from 1996 to 1998. The theoretical bases of the study are theories of second language acquisition, cognitive processing of space, and the linguistic encoding of spatial relations through prepositions. The main section of the analysis begins with the quantitative evaluation of the occurrences of spatial prepositions found in the data. Subsequently, each preposition found in the corpus is individually discussed in relation to its correct and incorrect uses. The main results are a steady increase in the number of spatial prepositions used by the subjects from the first year to the fourth year of the course, an increase in the variation of the use of these prepositions, and a constant reduction of the percentage of incorrect uses. In the first phase, acquisition can be seen in the increasing specificity of the semantic oppositions involved in neutralizations, whereas in the second phase, a quantitative reduction of errors can be found.