Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2015 (77) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (55)
- Dissertation (9)
- Postprint (6)
- Monographie/Sammelband (2)
- Teil eines Buches (Kapitel) (2)
- Ausgabe (Heft) zu einer Zeitschrift (1)
- Preprint (1)
- Rezension (1)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (77)
Schlagworte
- Patholinguistik (19)
- Sprachtherapie (19)
- geistige Behinderung (19)
- mental deficiency (19)
- patholinguistics (19)
- primary progessive aphasia (19)
- primär progessive Aphasie (19)
- speech therapy (19)
- interference (9)
- eye-tracking (7)
Institut
- Department Linguistik (77) (entfernen)
It is well established in language acquisition research that monolingual children and adult second language learners misinterpret sentences with the universal quantifier every and make quantifier-spreading errors that are attributed to a preference for a match in number between two sets of objects. The present Visual World eye-tracking study tested bilingual heritage Russian-English adults and investigated how they interpret of sentences like Every alligator lies in a bathtub in both languages. Participants performed a sentence-picture verification task while their eye movements were recorded. Pictures showed three pairs of alligators in bathtubs and two extra objects: elephants (Control condition), bathtubs (Overexhaustive condition), or alligators (Underexhaustive condition). Monolingual adults performed at ceiling in all conditions. Heritage language (HL) adults made 20% q-spreading errors, but only in the Overexhaustive condition, and when they made an error they spent more time looking at the two extra bathtubs during the Verb region. We attribute q-spreading in HL speakers to cognitive overload caused by the necessity to integrate conflicting sources of information, i.e. the spoken sentences in their weaker, heritage, language and attention-demanding visual context, that differed with respect to referential salience.
We attempt to clarify a great deal of confusion in the literature on what a passive is, and what counts as a passive in different languages. We do this through a detailed investigation of what has been identified as a passive in Vietnamese, sentences with the morphemes bi and duoc. We also compare these to Mandarin Chinese bei. We show that these morphemes are not passive at all: like English auxiliaries, they may occur with either an active complement or a passive one. We clarify this point and what it means to be a passive. Second, sentences with these morphemes and the corresponding sentences without them are truth-conditionally equivalent. We show that the extra meaning they convey is a type of projective, or not-at-issue, meaning that is separate from the at-issue content of the sentence. We provide a detailed syntactic and semantic analysis of Vietnamese, and give arguments for this analysis. We propose that there is no movement in Vietnamese, but there is in Chinese, and this difference accounts for differences between the two languages. We also clarify what agent-oriented adverbs of the 'deliberately' type show, and draw conclusions about English get passives and tough constructions. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Foreign Accent Syndrome
(2015)