Catalogue Search | MBRL
هل أنت متأكد أنك تريد إزالة الكتاب من الرف؟
{{itemTitle}}
24
نتائج ل
"Fagan, Sarah M. B"
صنف حسب:
Teaching the German Superlative
The basic form of the superlative suffix in German is -st (kleinst-), with some adjectives requiring a longer form, -est (lautest-). While the superlative has long been a topic in teaching materials, the accuracy of textbook treatments continues to be less than satisfactory. The difficulty arises in characterizing the adjectives that require the longer form of the suffix. Grammars provide no standard treatment of the superlative and fail to present concise generalizations, crucial to the language learner. This paper provides a new analysis of the superlative that incorporates the insights revealed in an evaluation of accounts of the superlative in three grammars of German. Stress, secondary as well as primary, the feature [coronal], and the recognition of complex segments are argued to be crucial for describing the environments in which -e- must be inserted before the -st suffix. The rule describing these environments is stated both in formal terms and in terms that are accessible to the language learner, and suggestions are provided for teaching.
Journal Article
Evidence for sk in German as a Complex Segment
This squib provides evidence from the superlative in support of Wiese’s (1996) position that
s
(sibilant) + stop sequences in German behave as complex segments. With the exception of the sequence /sk/, the consonants that require schwa epenthesis before the superlative suffix are all coronal obstruents:
nettest
- [ˈnɛtəst] ‘nicest’,
süßest
- [ˈzyːsəst] ‘sweetest’,
frischest
- [ˈfrɪʃəst] ‘freshest’,
brüskest
- [ˈbrʏskəst] ‘most abrupt’. If one assumes that the sequence /sk/ is a single, complex segment with the feature [coronal] as well as [dorsal], the formation of the superlative can be accounted for with a simple rule of schwa epenthesis.*
Journal Article
Basic Verbs of Conveyance: \Bring\ and \Take\ in German and English
This paper investigates the basic verbs of conveyance in German and English--bringen, nehmen, mitbringen, mitnehmen, bring, and take--with the purpose of clarifying the conditions under which they are used and the nuances of meaning they express. The study reveals that while the here/there distinction that underlies the traditional use of bring and take in English does not play a role in the use of bringen and nehmen, the distinction does govern the use of mitbringen and mitnehmen. The generalizations about the basic verbs of conveyance in German are stated in terms that are accessible to the language learner.
Journal Article
The semantics of the positional predicates liegen/legen, sitzen/setzen, and stehen/stellen
Die Praedikate liegen, sitzen, stehen, legen, setzen und stellen konfrontieren den englischen Muttersprachler mit Gebrauchsschwierigkeiten, die ueber Unsicherheiten, die durch Konjugationsmuster, Kasusforderung und Wahl des Auxiliars ausgeloest werden, hinausgehen. Liegen, sitzen und stehen koennen alle mit to be ins Englische uebersetzt werden, legen, setzen und stellen mit to put. Die deutschen Verben sind jedoch nicht synonym und im allgemeinen nicht vertauschbar. Die Untersuchung legt die Grundregeln dar, die den Gebrauch dieser Praedikate steuern. Die Regeln sollen als Leitlinien verstanden werden, die dem Sprachlerner helfen koennen, die spezifischen Besonderheiten dieser Verben zu verstehen und den korrekten Umgang mit ihnen zu erlernen.
Journal Article
The English Middle
Eng middles (eg, This book reads easily), like ergative constructions (eg, The door opened), are argued to be syntactically intransitive & derived solely in the lexicon, contrary to claims by S. J. Keyser & T. Roeper (see LLBA 19/1, 8500776). Keyser's & Roeper's tests, based on first sister incorporation in compounding, the use of repetitive away, out prefixation, & the deletion & stranding of prepositions, do not support the claim that middles are syntactically transitive & hence derived by movement in the syntactic component. Furthermore, the ungrammaticality of preposition stranding in middles provides important evidence against a syntactic treatment of middles. The differences between middles & ergatives are argued to be essentially semantic in nature. Middles are generic statements &, unlike ergatives, do not describe events, which are time-bound. Rather, middles attribute properties to objects that hold regardless of time. These differences are accounted for by means of operations on lexical structure. In middle formation, a generic interpretation is assigned to the external theta-role of a V; this theta-role is not projected in the syntax because it is saturated in the lexicon. In the formation of ergatives, the external theta-role of a V is deleted. Middles thus contain an understood theta-role, whereas ergatives do not. The sole syntactic difference between middles & ergatives - the obligatory presence of an adverbial modifier in middles - is argued to lie in the semantics of the construction. Middles are not used to report events, like ergatives, but to characterize the manner in which something typically is done to an object; hence the presence of an adverbial expression. 28 References. AA
Journal Article
THE UNACCUSATIVE HYPOTHESIS AND A REFLEXIVE CONSTRUCTION IN GERMAN AND DUTCH
German & Dutch reflexive constructions of the type Die Nachricht hat sich verbreitet/Het nieuws heeft zich verspreid 'the news spread' are examined in light of evidence supporting Luigi Burzio's unaccusative hypothesis (\"Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries,\" PhD dissertation, MIT, 1981) regarding the Italian counterpart of these constructions. Four tests for unaccusativity in German & Dutch are reviewed, & it is argued that only the ungrammaticality of impersonal passives (IPs) formed from unaccusative predicates is a valid diagnostic. As the subject position of an unaccusative predicate is by definition not a theta position, theta-role absorption in passivization would apply vacuously. German precicates of the class under study permit IPs (hier wird sich nicht gelangweilt 'nobody gets bored here'); therefore, their subject position must be a theta position. The ungrammaticality of the corresponding Dutch IPs is due to lexicalization of reanalysis in Dutch, leaving reflexives to function as true objects in IPs. Nonreflexive counterparts of these reflexives permit IPs in both languages (eg rollen 'to roll'). Due to the characteristic object properties of the subjects of such predicates, they are the most likely to test positively for unaccusativity; as they do not, it is unlikely that any German or Dutch predicate is unaccusative. J. Hitchcock
Book Chapter
