Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
- 2003 (12) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (7)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- magisterthesis (1)
- Preprint (1)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (12)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (12)
Keywords
- Deutsch (2)
- Morphologie (2)
- Semantik (2)
- Sinotibetische Sprachen (2)
- Syntax (2)
- Adjektiv (1)
- Albanisch (1)
- Aspekt (1)
- Funktionsverbgefüge (1)
- Griechisch (1)
- Hebräisch (1)
- Kindersprache (1)
- Kontrastive Syntax (1)
- Lerntheorie (1)
- Niederländisch (1)
- Optimalitätstheorie (1)
- Pragmatik (1)
- Qiang-Sprache (1)
- Skandinavische Sprachen (1)
- Türkisch (1)
Institute
- Extern (2)
Evidentiality in Qiang
(2003)
The Qiang language is spoken by about 70,000 (out of 200,000) Qiang people, plus 50,000 people classified as Tibetan by the Chinese government. Most Qiang speakers live in Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture on the eastern edge of the Tibetan plateau in the mountainous northwest part of Sichuan Province, China. The Qiang language is a member of the Qiangic branch of the Tibeto-Burman family of the Sino-Tibetan stock. Within Tibeto-Burman, a number oflanguages show evidence of evidential systems, but these systems cannot be reconstructed to any great time depth. The data used in this chapter is from Ranghang Village, Chibusu District, Mao County in Aba Prefecture.
This paper reports results from a series of experiments that investigated whether semantic and/or syntactic complexity influences young Dutch children’s production of past tense forms. The constructions used in the three experiments were (i) simple sentences (the Simple Sentence Experiment), (ii) complex sentences with CP complements (the Complement Clause Experiment) and (iii) complex sentences with relative clauses (the Relative Clause Experiment). The stimuli involved both atelic and telic predicates. The goal of this paper is to address the following questions.
Q1. Does semantic complexity regarding temporal anchoring influence the types of errors that children make in the experiments? For example, do children make certain types of errors when a past tense has to be anchored to the Utterance Time (UT), as compared to when it has to be anchored to the matrix topic time (TT)?
Q2. Do different syntactic positions influence children’s performance on past-tense production? Do children perform better in the Simple Sentence Experiment compared to complex sentences involving two finite clauses (the Complement Clause Experiment and the Relative Clause Experiment)? In complex sentence trials, do children perform differently when the CPs are complements vs. when the CPs are adjunct clauses? (Lebeaux 1990, 2000)
Q3. Do Dutch children make more errors with certain types of predicate (such as atelic predicates)? Alternatively, do children produce a certain type of error with a certain type of predicates (such as producing a perfect aspect with punctual predicates)? Bronckart and Sinclair (1973), for example, found that until the age of 6, French children showed a tendency to use passé composé with perfective events and simple present with imperfective events; we will investigate whether or not the equivalent of this is observed in Dutch.