Linguistik
Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (67) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (67)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (67) (remove)
Keywords
- Spracherwerb (67) (remove)
Institute
- Extern (1)
This paper presents the Croatian version of the Multilingual Assessment tool for Narratives (MAIN), outlines its development and describes the research that has used it to assess narrative skills in monolingual and bilingual speakers. The Croatian version of MAIN has so far been used in three research projects and results have been presented in five peer-reviewed articles (published or in press) covering a total of 175 children in the age range from 5;0 to 9;0 (20 with developmental language disorder) and 60 adults, age range from 22 to 76. The accumulated results indicate that MAIN can differentiate narrative skills of speakers in distinct age groups and can distinguish children with language disorders form children with typical language development.
This paper describes the revision of the Vietnamese version of the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (LITMUS-MAIN). We first introduce the Vietnamese language and Vietnamese-speaking populations after which we describe the translation and adaptation process of the Vietnamese MAIN and present results from monolingual and bilingual children.
This paper presents a short overview of Turkey and the Turkish language, and then outlines the process of adapting the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN) to Turkish and how the Turkish MAIN has been used with monolingual and bilingual children. The grammatical features of Turkish, the critical points in the adaptation process of MAIN to Turkish and our experiences of extensive piloting of the Turkish MAIN with typically developing monolingual children are described.
This paper describes the addition of Luxembourgish to the language versions of MAIN, the adaption process and the use of MAIN in Luxembourg. A short description of Luxembourg’s multilingual society and trilingual school system as well as an overview of selected morphosyntactic and syntactic features of Luxembourgish introduce the Luxembourgish version of MAIN.
Immigration in Iceland has a short history and so does the Icelandic language as an L2. This paper gives a brief introductory overview of this history and of some characteristics of the Icelandic language that constitute a challenge for L2 learners but also make it an interesting testing ground for cross-linguistic comparisons of L1 and L2 language acquisition. It then describes the adaptation process of the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (LITMUS-MAIN) to Icelandic. The Icelandic MAIN is expected to fill a gap in available assessment tools for multilingual Icelandic speaking children.
This paper describes Estonian version of the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (LITMUS-MAIN) to Estonian. A short description of Estonian, some challenges in the adapting MAIN to Estonian, the first experiences of using the Estonian MAIN and a summary of the first results are presented.
This paper describes the process of adapting the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (LITMUS-MAIN) to Danish and the use of MAIN in a Danish context. First, there is a brief description of the Danish language followed by details of the process of translating and adapting the MAIN manual to Danish. Finally, we briefly describe some of the research contexts in which the current and previous MAIN materials have been piloted and applied.
The ultimate goal of the study is to examine the acquisition of intensifiers in English and German. In this paper an overview of the first results regarding four L1 English-speaking children will be given. Contrary to previous claims in the literature (e.g. Thomas 1990), it will be argued that intensifiers are used by children in early phases of language acquisition. Intensifiers play an important role in early phases of language acquisition since they can be used to express the wish either to be included or excluded in a certain action and thus contribute to structuring a central aspect of the child's discourse.
The present study is concerned with Single Clitics, as weil as with Clitic Doubling and Clitic Left Dislocation constructions and will test the Uniformity Hypothesis (Sportiehe 1992), according to which all three constructions involve the same underlying structure. It will be shown that:
- acquisition data pose a problem for the Uniformity Hypothesis (Sportiche 1992) and support rather the idea that Single Clitic, Clitic Doubling and Clitic Left Dislocation constructions do not involve the same underlying structure,
- omission of definite articles in Clitic Doubling and Clitic Left Dislocation constructions parallels omission of definite articles in simple DPs,
- selective omission of some types of Determiners, i.e. definite articles and use of another type of Determiners, i.e. clitic pronouns, can be explained in terms of the different feature specification of words belonging to the category D and the different status of clitics vs. definite articles.
The article deals with the analysis of the development of aspectuality at the early stages of the acquisition of Russian. Data from seven children are investigated for this purpose. It is claimed that the category of aspectuality, being the property of the whole utterance, can be expressed at the early stages of language acquisition even before the verb itself occurs. During this period some children mark the basic aspectual opposition "process-result" by the linguistic devices at their disposal, namely by various uses of sound imitations or onomatopoetics. Onomatopoetics, when used once, can be said to be the predecessors of perfective verbs, while reduplicative use of onomatopoetics seems to correspond to the imperfective aspect. The paper presents an analysis of the early verb lexicons of six children. Among their 24 earliest verbs both aspects are represented. As revealed by the analysis, aspect (and Aktionsart) clusters with tense in a specific way: imperfective verbs are mainly used in the present while perfectives are used mostly in the past.