http://glottopedia.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Volker+gast&feedformat=atomGlottopedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T22:47:25ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.34.2http://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Stress&diff=10791Stress2010-06-27T10:38:26Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>In [[phonology]], the term '''stress''' refers to an abstract property of [[syllable]]s within the [[word domain]]. Stressed syllables are pronounced with more [[prominence]] than unstressed syllables. Prominence may involve greater [[amplitude]], higher [[pitch]], greater [[duration]] or greater accuracy of articulation (most notably in vowels). <br />
<br />
Lexical stress may be distinctive, as in 'inCREASE' (verb) vs 'INcrease' (noun).<br />
<br />
The term '''stress''' is also more generally used to indicate which words or phrases in a sentence bear [[accent]] (are in [[focus]]).<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
==General rules of stress assignment in English==<br />
There is only one primary stress position per word. Only syllables with a vocalic nucleus may be stressed.<br />
<br />
==Rules of stress placement for nouns and verbs==<br />
There are several, partly competing rules of stress assignment in English. The rules are sentitive to at least four factors: (i) the lexical class of the relevant item, (ii) the number of syllables, (iii) the phonological make-up of each of the syllables involved, and (iv) the historical origin of the word.<br />
<br />
===Disyllabic nouns===<br />
are mostly stressed on the [[penultimate]] syllable: ''PRESent'', ''EXport'', ''CHIna'', ''TAble''; exceptions are found in recent loan words, e.g. ''poLICE'', ''hoTEL''.<br />
<br />
===Disyllabic verbs===<br />
* ... are stressed on the [[ultimate]] syllable if it is [[heavy]]: ''carouse'', ''esteem'', ''fatigue'', ''foment'', ''maintain'', etc.<br />
* ... are stressed on the [[penultimate]] syllable if the [[ultimate]] syllable is not [[heavy]]: ''ambush'', ''banish'', ''brevet'', ''cancel'', etc.<br />
<br />
===Trisyllabic nouns===<br />
* ... are stressed on the [[penultimate]] syllable if it is not light: ''appendix'', ''banana'', ''intestine'', etc.<br />
* ... are stressed on the [[antepenultimate]] syllable if the penultimate syllable is light: ''asterisk'', ''citizen'', ''cinema'', etc.<br />
<br />
===Trisyllabic verbs===<br />
* ... are stressed on the peunultimate syllable if the [[ultimate]] syllable is not heavy: ''abandon'', ''accomplish'', ''elicit'', etc.<br />
* ... are stressed on the antepenultimate syllable if the ultimate syllable is heavy: ''analyze'', ''celebtrate'', ''culminate'', etc.<br />
<br />
===Distinctive lexical stress===<br />
There are many disyllabic words in English whose meaning and class is distinguished by stress, e.g. ''present''. If the word is stressed on the penultimate syllable, it functions as a noun (''gift'') or an adjective (antonym of ''absent''); if the ultimate syllable is stressed, the word functions as a verb (''offer''). Similarly ''export'', ''import'', ''contract'', ''object'', etc.<br />
<br />
==Rules of stress placement for adjectives==<br />
Adjectives share properties with both verbs and nouns, as far as their prosodic behaviour is concerned. Many disyllabic adjectives are stressed on the penultimate syllable: ''ancient'', ''fragile'', ''hollow'', ''narrow'', etc. Often, the stress position within a disyllabic adjectives is a function of the final syllable or suffix. For example, adjectives ending in ''-ant'', ''-ow'', ''-ient'' and ''-ous'' are normally stressed on the [[penultimate]] syllable: ''flagrant'', ''callow'', ''ancient'', ''anxious''. Specific (mostly Latinate) suffixes attract stress, e.g. '''-eme'' (''extreme'', ''supreme'') and ''-ene'' (''serene'', ''obscene'').<br />
<br />
==Stress in adjective-noun combinations==<br />
In cases of groups of two or more words, the place of stress depends on whether the group is a syntactic phrase or a compound noun. If it is a syntactic phrase, the adjective is usually less prominent while the noun carries the main stress: ''a nice GUY'' , ''a big HOUSE'', ''a good IDEA''. If two nouns form a compound noun, the stress is regularly put on the first word ('lefthand stress rule'): ''a HOT dog'', ''a PICture frame''. There are many (partly regular) exceptions to this rule, however, e.g. ''silk TIE'' and ''apple PIE'' (cf. Plag 2003).<br />
<br />
==Cases of stress variation among native speakers==<br />
In a few words, variation in stress assignment can be observed, which is partly conditioned by [[diatopic]] or [[diastratic]] variation, but which is sometimes also [[idiolectal]]. For example, some people say ''teleVIsion'' while others say ''TELevision''. Another example is ''CONtroversy'' vs. ''conTROversy''.<br />
<br />
==Literature==<br />
* Burzio, Luigi (1994). ''Principles of English Stress''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
* Carr, Philip (1999). ''English Phonetics and Phonology.'' Oxford: Blackwell.<br />
* König, E. and Volker Gast (2009). ''Understanding English-German Contrasts''. 2nd ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt (Ch. 3 on stress).<br />
* Giegerich, Heinz J. (1992). ''English Phonology''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
* Plag, Ingo (2003). ''Word Formation''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Stress&diff=10790Stress2010-06-27T10:32:15Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>In [[phonology]], the term '''stress''' refers to an abstract property of [[syllable]]s within the [[word domain]]. Stressed syllables are pronounced with more [[prominence]] than unstressed syllables. Prominence may involve greater [[amplitude]], higher [[pitch]], greater [[duration]] or greater accuracy of articulation (most notably in vowels). <br />
<br />
Lexical stress may be distinctive, as in 'inCREASE' (verb) vs 'INcrease' (noun).<br />
<br />
The term '''stress''' is also more generally used to indicate which words or phrases in a sentence bear [[accent]] (are in [[focus]]).<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
==General rules of stress assignment in English==<br />
There is only one primary stress position per word. Only syllables with a vocalic nucleus may be stressed.<br />
<br />
==Rules of stress placement for nouns and verbs==<br />
There are several, partly competing rules of stress assignment in English. The rules are sentitive to at least four factors: (i) the lexical class of the relevant item, (ii) the number of syllables, (iii) the phonological make-up of each of the syllables involved, and (iv) the historical origin of the word.<br />
<br />
===Disyllabic nouns===<br />
are mostly stressed on the [[penultimate]] syllable: ''PRESent'', ''EXport'', ''CHIna'', ''TAble''; exceptions are found in recent loan words, e.g. ''poLICE'', ''hoTEL''.<br />
<br />
===Disyllabic verbs===<br />
* ... are stressed on the [[ultimate]] syllable if it is [[heavy]]: ''carouse'', ''esteem'', ''fatigue'', ''foment'', ''maintain'', etc.<br />
* ... are stressed on the [[penultimate]] syllable if the [[ultimate]] syllable is not [[heavy]]: ''ambush'', ''banish'', ''brevet'', ''cancel'', etc.<br />
<br />
===Trisyllabic nouns===<br />
* ... are stressed on the [[penultimate]] syllable if it is not light: ''appendix'', ''banana'', ''intestine'', etc.<br />
* ... are stressed on the [[antepenultimate]] syllable if the penultimate syllable is light: ''asterisk'', ''citizen'', ''cinema'', etc.<br />
<br />
===Trisyllabic verbs===<br />
'''Trisyllabic verbs'''<br />
# ... are stressed on the peunultimate syllable if the [[ultimate]] syllable is not heavy: ''abandon'', ''accomplish'', ''elicit'', etc.<br />
# ... are stressed on the antepenultimate syllable if the ultimate syllable is heavy: ''analyze'', ''celebtrate'', ''culminate'', etc.<br />
<br />
===Distinctive lexical stress===<br />
There are many disyllabic words in English whose meaning and class is distinguished by stress, e.g. '''present'''. If the word is stressed on the penultimate syllable, it functions as a noun (''gift'') or an adjective (antonym of ''absent''); if the ultimate syllable is stressed, the word functions as a verb (''offer''). Similarly ''export'', ''import'', ''contract'', ''object'', etc.<br />
<br />
==Rules of stress placement for adjectives==<br />
Adjectives share properties with both verbs and nouns, as far as their prosodic behaviour is concerned. Many disyllabic adjectives are stressed on the penultimate syllable: ''ancient'', ''fragile'', ''hollow'', ''narrow'', etc. Often, the stress position within a disyllabic adjectives is a function of the final syllable or suffix. For example, adjectives ending in ''-ant'', ''-ow'', ''-ient'' and ''-ous'' are normally stressed on the [[penultimate]] syllable: ''flagrant'', ''callow'', ''ancient'', ''anxious''. Specific (mostly Latinate) suffixes attract stress, e.g. '''-eme'' (''extreme'', ''supreme'') and ''-ene'' (''serene'', ''obscene'').<br />
<br />
==Stress in adjective-noun combinations==<br />
In cases of groups of two or more words, the place of stress depends on whether the group is a syntactic phrase or a compound noun. If it is a syntactic phrase, the adjective is usually less prominent while the noun carries the main stress: ''a nice GUY'' , ''a big HOUSE'', ''a good IDEA''. If two nouns form a compound noun, the stress is regularly put on the first word ('lefthand stress rule'): ''a HOT dog'', ''a PICture frame''. There are many (partly regular) exceptions to this rule, however, e.g. ''silk TIE'' and ''apple PIE'' (cf. Plag 2003).<br />
<br />
====Cases of stress variation among native speakers====<br />
In a few words, variation in stress assignment can be observed, which is partly conditioned by [[diatopic]] or [[diastratic]] variation, but which is sometimes also [[idiolectal]]. For example, some people say '''teleVIsion''' while others say '''TELevision'''. Another example is '''CONtroversy''' vs. '''conTROversy'''.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Stress&diff=10789Stress2010-06-27T10:26:48Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>In [[phonology]], the term '''stress''' generally refers to an abstract property of [[syllable]]s within the [[word domain]]. Stressed syllables are pronounced with more [[prominence]] than unstressed syllables. Prominence may involve greater [[amplitude]], higher [[pitch]], greater [[duration]] or greater accuracy of articulation (most notably in vowels). <br />
<br />
Lexical stress may be distinctive, as in 'inCREASE' (verb) vs 'INcrease' (noun).<br />
<br />
The term '''stress''' is also more generally used to indicate which words or phrases in a sentence bear [[accent]] (are in [[focus]]).<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
==General rules of stress assignment in English==<br />
There is only one primary stress position per word. Only syllables with a vocalic nucleus may be stressed.<br />
<br />
==Rules of stress placement for nouns and verbs==<br />
There are several, partly competing rules of stress assignment in English. The rules are sentitive to at least four factors: (i) the lexical class of the relevant iten, (ii) the number of syllables, (iii) the phonological make-up of each of the syllables involved, and (iv) the historical origin of the word.<br />
<br />
===Disyllabic nouns===<br />
[[Disyllabic]] nouns are mostly stressed on the [[penultimate]] syllable: ''PRESent'', ''EXport'', ''CHIna'', ''TAble''; exceptions are found in recent loan words, e.g. ''poLICE'', ''hoTEL''.<br />
<br />
===Disyllabic verbs===<br />
'''Disyllabic verbs'''<br />
# ... are stressed on the [[ultimate]] syllable if it is [[heavy]]: ''carouse'', ''esteem'', ''fatigue'', ''foment'', ''maintain'', etc.<br />
# ... are stressed on the [[penultimate]] syllable if the [[ultimate]] syllable is not [[heavy]]: ''ambush'', ''banish'', ''brevet'', ''cancel'', etc.<br />
<br />
===Trisyllabic nouns===<br />
'''Trisyllabic nouns'''<br />
# ... are stressed on the [[penultimate]] syllable if it is not light: ''appendix'', ''banana'', ''intestine'', etc.<br />
# ... are stressed on the [[antepenultimate]] syllable if the penultimate syllable is light: ''asterisk'', ''citizen'', ''cinema'', etc.<br />
<br />
===Trisyllabic verbs===<br />
'''Trisyllabic verbs'''<br />
# ... are stressed on the peunultimate syllable if the [[ultimate]] syllable is not heavy: ''abandon'', ''accomplish'', ''elicit'', etc.<br />
# ... are stressed on the antepenultimate syllable if the ultimate syllable is heavy: ''analyze'', ''celebtrate'', ''culminate'', etc.<br />
<br />
===Lexical Stress - stress determining word class===<br />
There are many disyllabic words in English whose meaning and class is distinguished by stress, e.g. '''present'''. If the penultimate syllable is stressed, the word functions as a noun (''gift'') or an adjective (antonym of ''absent''); if the ultimate syllable is stressed, the word functions as a verb (''offer''). Similarly ''export'', ''import'', ''contract'', ''object'', etc.<br />
<br />
==Rules of stress assignment for adjectives==<br />
Adjectives share properties with both verbs and nouns, as far as their prosodic behaviour is concerned. Many disyllabic adjectives are stressed on the penultimate syllable: ''ancient'', ''fragile'', ''hollow', ''narrow'', etc. Often, the stress position within a disyllabic adjectives is a function of the final syllable or suffix. For example, adjectives ending in ''-ant'', ''-ow'', ''-ient'' and ''-ous'' are normally stressed on the [[penultimate]] syllable: ''flagrant'', ''callow'', ''ancient'', ''anxious''. Specific (mostly Latinate) suffixes attract stress, e.g. '''-eme'' (''extreme'', ''supreme'') and ''-ene'' (''serene'', ''obscene'').<br />
<br />
==Stress in adjective-noun combinations==<br />
In cases of groups of two or more words, the place of stress depends on whether the group is a syntactic phrase or a compound noun. If it is a syntactic phrase, the adjective is usually less prominent while the noun carries the main stress: ''a nice GUY'' , ''a big HOUSE'', ''a good IDEA''. If two nouns form a compound noun, the stress is regularly put on the first word ('lefthand stress rule): ''a HOT dog'', ''a PICture frame''. There are many (partly regular) exceptions to this rule, however, e.g. ''silk TIE'' and ''apple PIE'' (cf. Plag 2003).<br />
<br />
====Cases of stress variation among native speakers====<br />
In a few words, variation in stress assignment can be observed, which is partly conditioned by [[diatopic]] or [[diastratic]] variation, but which is sometimes also [[idiolectal]]. For example, some people say '''teleVIsion''' while others say '''TELevision'''. Another example is '''CONtroversy''' vs. '''conTROversy'''.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Coherence&diff=10778Coherence2010-06-17T09:07:35Z<p>Volker gast: /* Definition */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Definition=<br />
<br />
Coherence is a term of [[text linguistics]] used to refer to sense relations between single units (sentences or propositions) of a text. Due to these relations, the text appears to be logically and semantically consistent for the reader-hearer. Text analysis focussing on coherence is primarily concerned with the construction and configuration of sense in the text i.e. how its single [[constituent]]s are connected so that the text becomes meaningful for the addressee rather than being a random sequence of unrelated sentences and clauses.<br />
<br />
=Coherence vs. Cohesion=<br />
<br />
Text linguistics is concerned with the distinction between the terms 'cohesion' and 'coherence' (cf. Halliday 1994: 308-309; see also de Beaugrande and Dressler 1992: 3-7). Halliday (1994: 308-309) distinguishes between coherence and cohesion in terms of internal and external relations of a clause. Coherence is "the internal [resource] for structuring the clause as a message", including the notions of 'theme' and 'information', and cohesion refers to the external relationship between clauses and clause complexes, which are independent of grammatical structure.<br /><br />
Brinker (2005: 21-22) points out that the textual structure can be analysed both on a grammatical and on a thematic level, i.e. with respect to the syntactic-semantic relations between sentences (cohesion) and the logic-semantic relations established between propositions making up the thematic structure.<br />
<br />
The question of the functional connection between cohesion and coherence has raised much debate, most of the controversy discussing whether cohesion is a sufficient criterion for textual coherence or not. In several cases coherence has been regarded as a subject to, or pre-conditioned by, cohesion (Halliday 1994: 339). Hasan & Halliday (1976: 9) even maintained that cohesion is "the ONLY source of texture". These views have been challenged vehemently by others, however (see Brinker 2005: 41; Hellmann 1995: 193; Brown & Yule 1993: 227).<br /><br />
As a rule of thumb, a text can be coherent without being cohesive, and vice versa. Thus, the reader can still perceive coherence in a sequence of clauses and sentences even if the semantic and syntactic ties connecting them are missing. On the other hand, even if a text shows a strong degree of cohesion, with its constituents being interlinked by many cohesive ties, it does not need to be coherent. Consider, for instance, the following example:<br />
<blockquote>"Yesterday I met an old friend in London. '''In London''', there are numerous public libraries. '''These libraries''' were visited by boys and girls. '''The boys''' are handsome, and they often go to public swimming pools. '''These swimming pools''' were closed for several weeks last year. '''A week''' has seven days. '''Seven days''' ago I visited my grandparents in San José …" (example based on Brinker 2005: 41, slightly modified)</blockquote><br />
Although the above sentences are interlinked by many cohesive ties, the text reads a bit awkward owing to its lack of coherence. This lack arises because an overall theme underlying the whole structure is missing (see below: theme-rheme structure). Compare, in contrast, the next set of examples:<br />
# It was cold in the room. Someone had opened a window.<br />
# There had been an accident. Two cars had crashed. Two cats died, but there were no human casualties. (example from Brinker 2005: 42; slightly modified)<br />
# John took a train from Paris to Istanbul. He likes spinach. (Kehler 2002: 2)<br />
Sentence (1) contains a slight vestige of cohesion (as exophoric reference).In (2), the coherence of the single sentences is even more. There are no cohesive ties explaining the three sentences as concurrent sense-related events specifying and explaining each other. Although the anaphoric reference pronoun in (3) is a cohesive link, it does not help the reader establish any logical and semantic relation between John traveling from Paris to Istanbul and having a preference for spinach.<br /><br />
Kehler suggests that any reader-hearer draws logical conclusions to find scenarios in which seemingly unrelated sentences become coherent. Thus, it is logical reasoning faculty that allows them to infer the logical relations between propositions from the common theme “the accident and its consequences” in a sentence such as (3). <br />Establishing coherence in a text is, therefore, a complex cognitive achievement which involves far more than mere text-inherent factors (and, therefore, cohesion), as show by Brown & Yule (1993: 223-270). Each text is a complex message system enabling communication between producer and recipient. The latter always attempts to interpret the intended meaning by making inferences; for the interpretation of the text, however, he or she resorts to both textual (co-text) and extra-textual devices, such as context and background knowledge.<br />
<br />
=Theme and Rheme=<br />
<br />
Linguists of the Prague school argued that a sentence can be structured into two parts: a theme and a rheme. According to Vilém Mathesius, theme is the point of departure of a proposition telling what a sentence is about, and rheme an elaboration of the theme (Brinker 2005: 49). <br />
The theme-rheme terminology was refined by František Daneš in the 1970s who defined text as a concatenation of propositions in a specific situation and context. He argued that each sentence consists of a theme and a rheme: <br />
<blockquote>“In fast jeder Aussage unterscheidet man das, worüber etwas mitgeteilt wird (DAS THEMA) und das, was darüber mitgeteilt wird (DAS RHEMA, die Aussage im eigenen, engeren Sinne)” (Daneš 1970: 72-73)</blockquote><br />
Daneš further elaborates that text is a connection of themes which establish a thematic structure. Thus, each sentence might be described as a message system which consists of a theme combined with a rheme (Halliday 1994: 37). As a rule of thumb, the theme is always the left-most constituent in a sentence. Consider the following examples:<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
! Theme<br />
! Rheme<br />
|-<br />
| A rough gale<br />
| swept over the sea.<br />
|-<br />
| The Queen<br />
| was greeted by people all over the country.<br />
|-<br />
| The milk can<br />
| which had been knocked over in the garden.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
However, terms theme and rheme are sometimes used interchangeably and synonymously with topic and comment (among others by F. Daneš and Brown & Yule: 125pp.) whereas others make a clear-cut distinction between theme-rheme and topic-comment. Halliday(1994: 38) argues that topic is rather a specific kind of theme and more a matter of information structure than of coherence. This article, distinguishes between theme, rheme, and thematic structure. Moreover, Halliday shows that the theme is not always a nominal group but can also be an adverbial group or prepositional phrase.<br />
<br />
=Thematic Progression=<br />
<br />
F. Daneš distinguishes between different patterns of thematic progression depending on whether a theme remains constant, is split up, or changed from one sentence to the next (Daneš 1970: 74-78). These are the five most frequent types of thematic progression:<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''simple linear progression''', the rheme of the first sentence becomes the theme of a second sentence: <blockquote>"Peter (T1) recently went to see the Olympic Games in Vancouver (R1). This town (R1=T2) had been named after Captain George Vancouver (R2). The Captain (R2=T3) had spent only one day in the town to meet the Spaniards (R3) ..."</blockquote><br />
* '''constant theme''', the theme remains constant in the sequence of sentences; only the rheme is changed:<blockquote>"The throstle (T1) was singing all night (R1). It (T1) was living in a tall tree (R2). It (T1) had a hard time defending its eggs against birds of prey (R3)"</blockquote><br />
* '''derived themes''', single themes have been derived from a 'hypertheme' (which is 'the geographical data of Romania' in the following example): <blockquote>"Romania (T1) is situated in Southeastern Europe, on the Lower Danube, bordering on the Black Sea (R1). Its surface area (T2) amounts to 92.043 square miles (R2). Its estimated population (T3) is 22.215.421 inhabitants (R3) ..." (example based on Daneš 1970: 76)<br />
* '''split rheme''', the rheme of a sentence is split into different themes; one double theme is the point of departure for two (or more) independent partial progressions, with one progression being developed after the other: <blockquote>"At the entrance of a house (T1) two men are waiting (R = R1'+R1''). One of them (T2' = R1') is smoking (R2'); the other one (T2'' = R1'') is drinking (R2'') ..."</blockquote><br />
* '''thematic lapse''', one link of the thematic chain is missing; it might be easily supplemented from the context:<blockquote>"Peter (T1) entered the dark room (R1). It (T2 = R1) was furnished with costly furniture (R2). The carpets (T4) were of bright colours (R4)."</blockquote><br />
<br />
In the above example there is a lapse from ''furniture'' to ''carpets'' without interrupting the coherence of the sentences. The theme ''carpets'' can be inferred from ''room'' although the information that the carpets are a part of the furniture is not provided (Brinker 2005: 51).<br />
Those types of thematic progression rarely appear independently from each other but tend to be combined in most cases. Furthermore, as Daneš (1970: 78) emphasizes, there are many exceptions, special cases and deviations.<br />
<br />
=Coherence Relations=<br />
<br />
Given that a text, a paragraph of a text, or even only two sentences or clauses have a common theme (such as 'the geographical facts about Romania' in the example given by Daneš above) there must be some common denominator that identifies a sequence of propositions as pertaining to the same theme.<br />
<br />
The sentences of a text are rather interlinked by what Kehler (2002: 3), Hobbs (1985: 2) and Sander et al. (1992: 1pp.) call various “coherence relations.” These sense relations, which are also called "propositional relations" by Mann & Thompson (1986: 58pp.), are encoded in the text and identified by the reader who tries to make sense of the text and its constituents. They are simply put, "types of reasons why speakers or writers have added this particular sentence" (Meyer et al. 2005: 151). Coherence relations are sometimes called 'types of thematic development'.<br />
<br />
What is proposed here is a classification of theme relations blending categories used by Brinker (2005: 65-87), Meyer et al. (2005: 151-153), and Kehler (2002: 15-23). They are, however, only the most important types, and it should be noted that there are more, as, for example, pointed out by Mann & Thompson (1986: 60-67).<br />
<br />
* '''parallel''', <blockquote>"Dick Gephardt organized rallies for Gore, and Tom Daschle distributed pamphlets for him."(Kehler 2002: 16)</blockquote><br />
* '''description''', a theme is split up into its components; it is specified and situated in space and time. The descriptive theme development either refers to a unique historical event (i.e. in news and reports), a process that is generalized or repeated (i.e. found in recipes, encyclopaedia entries, manuals etc.), or the description of either a living creature or an object (as found, for instance, in dictionary articles)<br />
* '''narration''', especially found in recounting of everyday situations, in newspaper articles, in narratives etc.; the elements in a narrative are usually ordered according to the linear order of the events described (compare: temporal relation)<br />
* '''clarification''',<br />
** '''contrast''', <blockquote>"The U.S. Geological Survey says eight Haitian cities and towns - including this capital of 3 million - suffered "violent" to "extreme" shaking in last month's 7-magnitude quake (...). In Chile, no urban area suffered more than "severe" shaking - the third most serious level - Saturday in its 8.8-magnitude disaster, by USGS measure." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100228/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_tale_of_two_quakes, 4 March 2010, 2:45 p.m.; slightly modified) </blockquote><br />
** '''explication''', <blockquote>"The Atlantic bluefin tuna is considered a delicacy from Osaka to Omaha. In Tokyo's venerable Tsukiji fish market, a single giant blue tuna can fetch up to $100,000 in auction." (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1969589,00.html#ixzz0hDLxeB5k</blockquote><br />
* '''temporal relation''', a temporal relation can be marked both explicitly (i.e. by cohesive ties) and implicitly (inferred by the reader)<blockquote>"The Caterpillar and Alice looked at each other for some time in silence: at last the Caterpillar took the hookah out of its mouth, and addressed her in a languid, sleepy voice. 'Who are you?' said the Caterpillar [...]. "(Carroll, Lewis (1993). Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. London: Wordsworth. 49)</blockquote><br />
* '''cause-effect-relation''', <blockquote>"George is a politician. Therefore, he's dishonest. (result)<br /> George is dishonest. He's a politician. (explanation) (both: Kehler 2002: 20-21)"</blockquote><br />
* '''argumentation''', the speaker or writer introduces an argument and backs it up by supporting facts or other pieces of evidence: <blockquote>"The introduction of genetically modified (GM) food and crops has been a disaster. The science of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another poses a serious threat to biodiversity and our own health. In addition, the real reason for their development has not been to end world hunger but to increase the stranglehold multinational biotech companies already have on food production[...]"(http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gm, 4 March 2010, 2:49 p.m.)<br />
<br />
=See also=<br />
<br />
[[Text]]<br /><br />
[[Cohesion]]<br /><br />
[[Information structure]]<br /><br />
[[Context]]<br /><br />
[[Co-text]]<br /><br />
[[Reference]]<br /><br />
[[Inference]]<br /><br />
[[Proposition]]<br /><br />
[[Topic]]<br /><br />
[[Focus]]<br /><br />
<br />
=References and Recommended Reading=<br />
<br />
* Brinker, Klaus (2005). Linguistische Textanalyse. Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden. 6th ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.<br />
<br />
* Brown, Gillian & George Yule (1993). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
<br />
* Bublitz, Wolfram (2000). “Cohesion and Coherence.” In: Verschueren, Jef et al., eds. Handbook of Pragmatics. 1998 Installment. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1-15.<br />
<br />
* Daneš, František (1970). “Zur linguistischen Analyse der Textstruktur.” Folia Linguistica 4: 72-78.<br />
<br />
* De Beaugrande, Robert & Wolfgang Dressler (1992). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London & New York: Longman.<br />
<br />
* Halliday, Michael (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London et al.: Edward Arnold.<br />
<br />
* Halliday, Michael & Ruqaiya Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London & New York: Longman.<br />
<br />
* Hellmann, Christina (1995). “The Notion of Coherence in Discourse.” In: Rickheit, Gert & Christopher Habel, eds.<br />
<br />
* Focus and Coherence in Discourse Processing. Research in Text Theory. Vol. 22. Ed. János S. Petöfi. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. 190-202.<br />
<br />
* Hobbs, Jerry R. (1979). “Coherence and Coreference.” Cognitive Science 3: 67-90.<br />
<br />
* --- (1985). “On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse” (Report No. CSLI-85-37). Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information. 1-35.<br />
<br />
* Hobbs, Jerry R. & Michael Agar (1985). “The Coherence of Incoherent Discourse.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 4: 213-232. <br />
<br />
* Kehler, Andrew (2002). Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publishers.<br />
<br />
* Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson (1986). “Relational Propositions in Discourse.” Discourse Processes 9: 57-90.<br />
<br />
* Meyer, Paul Georg et al. (2005). Synchronic English Linguistics: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.<br />
<br />
* Sanders, Ted J. M. et al. (1992). “Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations.” Discourse Processes 15: 1-35.<br />
<br />
* Sanders, Ted J. M. & H. Pander Maat (2006). “Cohesion and Coherence: Linguistic Approaches.” In: Brown, Keith, ed. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier. 591-595.<br />
<br />
* Van Dijk, Teun A. (1980). ''Textwissenschaft. Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung''. Tübingen: Niemeyer.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Coherence&diff=10777Coherence2010-06-17T09:06:22Z<p>Volker gast: based on a term paper by Ch. Wehmeier, revised by G. Bochmann</p>
<hr />
<div>=Definition=<br />
<br />
Coherence is a term of [[text linguistics]] used to refer to sense relations between single units (sentences or propositions) of a text. Due to these relations, the text appears to be logically and semantically consistent for the reader-hearer. Text analysis focussing on coherence is primarily concerned with the construction and configuration of sense in the text i.e. how its single [[constituents]] are connected so that the text becomes meaningful for the addressee rather than being a random sequence of unrelated sentences and clauses.<br />
<br />
=Coherence vs. Cohesion=<br />
<br />
Text linguistics is concerned with the distinction between the terms 'cohesion' and 'coherence' (cf. Halliday 1994: 308-309; see also de Beaugrande and Dressler 1992: 3-7). Halliday (1994: 308-309) distinguishes between coherence and cohesion in terms of internal and external relations of a clause. Coherence is "the internal [resource] for structuring the clause as a message", including the notions of 'theme' and 'information', and cohesion refers to the external relationship between clauses and clause complexes, which are independent of grammatical structure.<br /><br />
Brinker (2005: 21-22) points out that the textual structure can be analysed both on a grammatical and on a thematic level, i.e. with respect to the syntactic-semantic relations between sentences (cohesion) and the logic-semantic relations established between propositions making up the thematic structure.<br />
<br />
The question of the functional connection between cohesion and coherence has raised much debate, most of the controversy discussing whether cohesion is a sufficient criterion for textual coherence or not. In several cases coherence has been regarded as a subject to, or pre-conditioned by, cohesion (Halliday 1994: 339). Hasan & Halliday (1976: 9) even maintained that cohesion is "the ONLY source of texture". These views have been challenged vehemently by others, however (see Brinker 2005: 41; Hellmann 1995: 193; Brown & Yule 1993: 227).<br /><br />
As a rule of thumb, a text can be coherent without being cohesive, and vice versa. Thus, the reader can still perceive coherence in a sequence of clauses and sentences even if the semantic and syntactic ties connecting them are missing. On the other hand, even if a text shows a strong degree of cohesion, with its constituents being interlinked by many cohesive ties, it does not need to be coherent. Consider, for instance, the following example:<br />
<blockquote>"Yesterday I met an old friend in London. '''In London''', there are numerous public libraries. '''These libraries''' were visited by boys and girls. '''The boys''' are handsome, and they often go to public swimming pools. '''These swimming pools''' were closed for several weeks last year. '''A week''' has seven days. '''Seven days''' ago I visited my grandparents in San José …" (example based on Brinker 2005: 41, slightly modified)</blockquote><br />
Although the above sentences are interlinked by many cohesive ties, the text reads a bit awkward owing to its lack of coherence. This lack arises because an overall theme underlying the whole structure is missing (see below: theme-rheme structure). Compare, in contrast, the next set of examples:<br />
# It was cold in the room. Someone had opened a window.<br />
# There had been an accident. Two cars had crashed. Two cats died, but there were no human casualties. (example from Brinker 2005: 42; slightly modified)<br />
# John took a train from Paris to Istanbul. He likes spinach. (Kehler 2002: 2)<br />
Sentence (1) contains a slight vestige of cohesion (as exophoric reference).In (2), the coherence of the single sentences is even more. There are no cohesive ties explaining the three sentences as concurrent sense-related events specifying and explaining each other. Although the anaphoric reference pronoun in (3) is a cohesive link, it does not help the reader establish any logical and semantic relation between John traveling from Paris to Istanbul and having a preference for spinach.<br /><br />
Kehler suggests that any reader-hearer draws logical conclusions to find scenarios in which seemingly unrelated sentences become coherent. Thus, it is logical reasoning faculty that allows them to infer the logical relations between propositions from the common theme “the accident and its consequences” in a sentence such as (3). <br />Establishing coherence in a text is, therefore, a complex cognitive achievement which involves far more than mere text-inherent factors (and, therefore, cohesion), as show by Brown & Yule (1993: 223-270). Each text is a complex message system enabling communication between producer and recipient. The latter always attempts to interpret the intended meaning by making inferences; for the interpretation of the text, however, he or she resorts to both textual (co-text) and extra-textual devices, such as context and background knowledge.<br />
<br />
=Theme and Rheme=<br />
<br />
Linguists of the Prague school argued that a sentence can be structured into two parts: a theme and a rheme. According to Vilém Mathesius, theme is the point of departure of a proposition telling what a sentence is about, and rheme an elaboration of the theme (Brinker 2005: 49). <br />
The theme-rheme terminology was refined by František Daneš in the 1970s who defined text as a concatenation of propositions in a specific situation and context. He argued that each sentence consists of a theme and a rheme: <br />
<blockquote>“In fast jeder Aussage unterscheidet man das, worüber etwas mitgeteilt wird (DAS THEMA) und das, was darüber mitgeteilt wird (DAS RHEMA, die Aussage im eigenen, engeren Sinne)” (Daneš 1970: 72-73)</blockquote><br />
Daneš further elaborates that text is a connection of themes which establish a thematic structure. Thus, each sentence might be described as a message system which consists of a theme combined with a rheme (Halliday 1994: 37). As a rule of thumb, the theme is always the left-most constituent in a sentence. Consider the following examples:<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
! Theme<br />
! Rheme<br />
|-<br />
| A rough gale<br />
| swept over the sea.<br />
|-<br />
| The Queen<br />
| was greeted by people all over the country.<br />
|-<br />
| The milk can<br />
| which had been knocked over in the garden.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
However, terms theme and rheme are sometimes used interchangeably and synonymously with topic and comment (among others by F. Daneš and Brown & Yule: 125pp.) whereas others make a clear-cut distinction between theme-rheme and topic-comment. Halliday(1994: 38) argues that topic is rather a specific kind of theme and more a matter of information structure than of coherence. This article, distinguishes between theme, rheme, and thematic structure. Moreover, Halliday shows that the theme is not always a nominal group but can also be an adverbial group or prepositional phrase.<br />
<br />
=Thematic Progression=<br />
<br />
F. Daneš distinguishes between different patterns of thematic progression depending on whether a theme remains constant, is split up, or changed from one sentence to the next (Daneš 1970: 74-78). These are the five most frequent types of thematic progression:<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''simple linear progression''', the rheme of the first sentence becomes the theme of a second sentence: <blockquote>"Peter (T1) recently went to see the Olympic Games in Vancouver (R1). This town (R1=T2) had been named after Captain George Vancouver (R2). The Captain (R2=T3) had spent only one day in the town to meet the Spaniards (R3) ..."</blockquote><br />
* '''constant theme''', the theme remains constant in the sequence of sentences; only the rheme is changed:<blockquote>"The throstle (T1) was singing all night (R1). It (T1) was living in a tall tree (R2). It (T1) had a hard time defending its eggs against birds of prey (R3)"</blockquote><br />
* '''derived themes''', single themes have been derived from a 'hypertheme' (which is 'the geographical data of Romania' in the following example): <blockquote>"Romania (T1) is situated in Southeastern Europe, on the Lower Danube, bordering on the Black Sea (R1). Its surface area (T2) amounts to 92.043 square miles (R2). Its estimated population (T3) is 22.215.421 inhabitants (R3) ..." (example based on Daneš 1970: 76)<br />
* '''split rheme''', the rheme of a sentence is split into different themes; one double theme is the point of departure for two (or more) independent partial progressions, with one progression being developed after the other: <blockquote>"At the entrance of a house (T1) two men are waiting (R = R1'+R1''). One of them (T2' = R1') is smoking (R2'); the other one (T2'' = R1'') is drinking (R2'') ..."</blockquote><br />
* '''thematic lapse''', one link of the thematic chain is missing; it might be easily supplemented from the context:<blockquote>"Peter (T1) entered the dark room (R1). It (T2 = R1) was furnished with costly furniture (R2). The carpets (T4) were of bright colours (R4)."</blockquote><br />
<br />
In the above example there is a lapse from ''furniture'' to ''carpets'' without interrupting the coherence of the sentences. The theme ''carpets'' can be inferred from ''room'' although the information that the carpets are a part of the furniture is not provided (Brinker 2005: 51).<br />
Those types of thematic progression rarely appear independently from each other but tend to be combined in most cases. Furthermore, as Daneš (1970: 78) emphasizes, there are many exceptions, special cases and deviations.<br />
<br />
=Coherence Relations=<br />
<br />
Given that a text, a paragraph of a text, or even only two sentences or clauses have a common theme (such as 'the geographical facts about Romania' in the example given by Daneš above) there must be some common denominator that identifies a sequence of propositions as pertaining to the same theme.<br />
<br />
The sentences of a text are rather interlinked by what Kehler (2002: 3), Hobbs (1985: 2) and Sander et al. (1992: 1pp.) call various “coherence relations.” These sense relations, which are also called "propositional relations" by Mann & Thompson (1986: 58pp.), are encoded in the text and identified by the reader who tries to make sense of the text and its constituents. They are simply put, "types of reasons why speakers or writers have added this particular sentence" (Meyer et al. 2005: 151). Coherence relations are sometimes called 'types of thematic development'.<br />
<br />
What is proposed here is a classification of theme relations blending categories used by Brinker (2005: 65-87), Meyer et al. (2005: 151-153), and Kehler (2002: 15-23). They are, however, only the most important types, and it should be noted that there are more, as, for example, pointed out by Mann & Thompson (1986: 60-67).<br />
<br />
* '''parallel''', <blockquote>"Dick Gephardt organized rallies for Gore, and Tom Daschle distributed pamphlets for him."(Kehler 2002: 16)</blockquote><br />
* '''description''', a theme is split up into its components; it is specified and situated in space and time. The descriptive theme development either refers to a unique historical event (i.e. in news and reports), a process that is generalized or repeated (i.e. found in recipes, encyclopaedia entries, manuals etc.), or the description of either a living creature or an object (as found, for instance, in dictionary articles)<br />
* '''narration''', especially found in recounting of everyday situations, in newspaper articles, in narratives etc.; the elements in a narrative are usually ordered according to the linear order of the events described (compare: temporal relation)<br />
* '''clarification''',<br />
** '''contrast''', <blockquote>"The U.S. Geological Survey says eight Haitian cities and towns - including this capital of 3 million - suffered "violent" to "extreme" shaking in last month's 7-magnitude quake (...). In Chile, no urban area suffered more than "severe" shaking - the third most serious level - Saturday in its 8.8-magnitude disaster, by USGS measure." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100228/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_tale_of_two_quakes, 4 March 2010, 2:45 p.m.; slightly modified) </blockquote><br />
** '''explication''', <blockquote>"The Atlantic bluefin tuna is considered a delicacy from Osaka to Omaha. In Tokyo's venerable Tsukiji fish market, a single giant blue tuna can fetch up to $100,000 in auction." (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1969589,00.html#ixzz0hDLxeB5k</blockquote><br />
* '''temporal relation''', a temporal relation can be marked both explicitly (i.e. by cohesive ties) and implicitly (inferred by the reader)<blockquote>"The Caterpillar and Alice looked at each other for some time in silence: at last the Caterpillar took the hookah out of its mouth, and addressed her in a languid, sleepy voice. 'Who are you?' said the Caterpillar [...]. "(Carroll, Lewis (1993). Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. London: Wordsworth. 49)</blockquote><br />
* '''cause-effect-relation''', <blockquote>"George is a politician. Therefore, he's dishonest. (result)<br /> George is dishonest. He's a politician. (explanation) (both: Kehler 2002: 20-21)"</blockquote><br />
* '''argumentation''', the speaker or writer introduces an argument and backs it up by supporting facts or other pieces of evidence: <blockquote>"The introduction of genetically modified (GM) food and crops has been a disaster. The science of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another poses a serious threat to biodiversity and our own health. In addition, the real reason for their development has not been to end world hunger but to increase the stranglehold multinational biotech companies already have on food production[...]"(http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gm, 4 March 2010, 2:49 p.m.)<br />
<br />
=See also=<br />
<br />
[[Text]]<br /><br />
[[Cohesion]]<br /><br />
[[Information structure]]<br /><br />
[[Context]]<br /><br />
[[Co-text]]<br /><br />
[[Reference]]<br /><br />
[[Inference]]<br /><br />
[[Proposition]]<br /><br />
[[Topic]]<br /><br />
[[Focus]]<br /><br />
<br />
=References and Recommended Reading=<br />
<br />
* Brinker, Klaus (2005). Linguistische Textanalyse. Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden. 6th ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.<br />
<br />
* Brown, Gillian & George Yule (1993). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
<br />
* Bublitz, Wolfram (2000). “Cohesion and Coherence.” In: Verschueren, Jef et al., eds. Handbook of Pragmatics. 1998 Installment. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1-15.<br />
<br />
* Daneš, František (1970). “Zur linguistischen Analyse der Textstruktur.” Folia Linguistica 4: 72-78.<br />
<br />
* De Beaugrande, Robert & Wolfgang Dressler (1992). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London & New York: Longman.<br />
<br />
* Halliday, Michael (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London et al.: Edward Arnold.<br />
<br />
* Halliday, Michael & Ruqaiya Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London & New York: Longman.<br />
<br />
* Hellmann, Christina (1995). “The Notion of Coherence in Discourse.” In: Rickheit, Gert & Christopher Habel, eds.<br />
<br />
* Focus and Coherence in Discourse Processing. Research in Text Theory. Vol. 22. Ed. János S. Petöfi. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. 190-202.<br />
<br />
* Hobbs, Jerry R. (1979). “Coherence and Coreference.” Cognitive Science 3: 67-90.<br />
<br />
* --- (1985). “On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse” (Report No. CSLI-85-37). Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information. 1-35.<br />
<br />
* Hobbs, Jerry R. & Michael Agar (1985). “The Coherence of Incoherent Discourse.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 4: 213-232. <br />
<br />
* Kehler, Andrew (2002). Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publishers.<br />
<br />
* Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson (1986). “Relational Propositions in Discourse.” Discourse Processes 9: 57-90.<br />
<br />
* Meyer, Paul Georg et al. (2005). Synchronic English Linguistics: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.<br />
<br />
* Sanders, Ted J. M. et al. (1992). “Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations.” Discourse Processes 15: 1-35.<br />
<br />
* Sanders, Ted J. M. & H. Pander Maat (2006). “Cohesion and Coherence: Linguistic Approaches.” In: Brown, Keith, ed. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier. 591-595.<br />
<br />
* Van Dijk, Teun A. (1980). ''Textwissenschaft. Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung''. Tübingen: Niemeyer.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Tense&diff=10763Tense2010-05-23T20:49:10Z<p>Volker gast: /* Definition */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Definition==<br />
'''Tense''' is traditionally defined as a grammatical feature or (deictic) category expressing a temporal relation between the event described by the verb and the moment of utterance. <br />
<br />
Alternatively, '''tense''' can be defined as a grammatical feature or (deictic) category encoding a temporal relation between the [[topic time]] (Klein 1994) and an extra-linguistic reference point, the [[time of orientation]] (Huddleston & Pullum 2002).<br />
<br />
==Comment==<br />
Even though grammatical '''tense''' marking is found in the majority of the world's languages, there are also languages without grammaticalized tense (cf. Comrie 1985). Tense may either be marked by inflectional morphemes ('synthetic tense marking') or by free morphemes ('analytic tense marking').<br />
<br />
==Classification of temporal categories==<br />
A distinction can be made between (i) [[absolute tense]], (ii) [[relative tense]] and (iii) [[absolute-relative tense]] (Comrie 1985).<br />
<br />
The difference between absolute and relative tense is reflected in the use of time adverbials. Absolute time adverbials such as ''next year'', ''four hours ago'', ''in five days'' or ''tomorrow'' are related to the time of utterance. For example, ''tomorrow'' is the day after the day when the sentence is uttered. In contrast, relative time adverbials such as ''four hours before'', ''five days after'' or ''on the day before'' require an inner-textual reference point.<br />
<br />
==Theories of tense==<br />
<br />
The description of the models of time reference developed by Reichenbach (1947), Comrie (1985) and Klein (1994) are represented in chronological order.<br />
<br />
===Reichenbach (1947)===<br />
According to Reichenbach, temporal reference involves three parameters: 'S' (point of speech), 'E' (point of event) and 'R' (point of reference). These parameters stand in a relationship of temporal precedence to each other (marked by ‘-‘), or they occur simultaneously (marked by ‘,’). For example, 'R-S,E' means that the point of speech (S) and the event (E) are simultaneous, whereas the point of reference (R) is located prior to the event and the moment of speech.<br />
<br />
Three absolute tenses are distinguished, depending on the relationship between R and S (R=S: present, R-S: past, S-R: future). Aspect or relative tense is indicated by the relationship between E and R (E,R: simple, E-R: anterior, R-E: posterior). By combining the relation between R and S with the one between R and E, thirteen tenses can be distinguished. Two sets of three tenses can be subsumed under a single term, as natural languages do not normally seem to distinguish between them. <br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
|E-R-S <br />
|Anterior Past<br />
|-<br />
|E,R-S<br />
|Simple Past<br />
|-<br />
|R-E-S <br />
| rowspan="3" |<br />
Posterior Past<br />
|-<br />
|R-S,E <br />
|-<br />
|R-S-E<br />
|-<br />
|E-S,R<br />
|Anterior Present<br />
|-<br />
|S,R,E<br />
|Simple Present<br />
|-<br />
|S,R-E<br />
|Posterior Present<br />
|-<br />
|S-E-R<br />
| rowspan="3" |<br />
Anterior Future <br />
|-<br />
|S,E-R<br />
|-<br />
|E-S-R<br />
|-<br />
|S-R,E<br />
|Simple Future<br />
|-<br />
|S-R-E<br />
|Posterior Future<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Comrie (1985)===<br />
Comrie (1985) adopts the parameters used by Reichenbach (E, S, R). However, unlike in Reichenbach's system the distinction between [[absolute tenses]] and [[relative tenses]] is reflected in his theory. [[Absolute tenses]] only indicate a relationship between E and S. The parameter 'R' is only relevant to the interpretatio of [[absolute-relative tense]]s.<br />
<br />
E is related to S and (in the case of absolute-relative tenses) S to R in terms of the temporal relations 'simul', 'before' and 'after':<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
|E simul S || present tense<br />
|-<br />
|E before S || past tense<br />
|-<br />
|E after S || future tense<br />
|-<br />
|E before R before S || past perfect<br />
|-<br />
|E before R after S || future perfect<br />
|-<br />
|E after R before S || future in the past<br />
|-<br />
|E after R after S || future in the future<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Klein (1994)===<br />
Like Reichenbach and Comrie, Klein uses three parameters: time of utterance (TU), time of situation (Tsit) and topic time (TT). The [[topic time]] takes up a central position in his theory. It is defined as "the time span to which the speaker’s claim on this occasion is confined" (Klein 1994: 4).<br />
<br />
'''Tense''' is regarded as encoding a relationship between TT and TU. Three values are possible: incl (included in), after and before:<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
|TU incl TT || present tense<br />
|-<br />
|TU after TT || past tense<br />
|-<br />
|TU before TT || future tense<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The three basic temporal categories are cross-classified with three aspectual categories, corresponding to the relationship between TSit and TT. There are four possibilities: incl ('included in', imperfective), at ('partly included', perfective), after (perfect) and before (prospective). Accordingly, twelve tense-aspect categories can be distinguished:<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
| || past || present || future<br />
|-<br />
|imperfective || was sleeping || is sleeping || will be sleeping<br />
|-<br />
|perfective || slept || sleeps || will sleep<br />
|-<br />
|perfect || had slept || has slept || will have slept<br />
|-<br />
|prospective || was going to sleep || is going to sleep || will be going to sleep<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
* Chomsky, N. 1981. ''Lectures on Government and Binding,'' Foris, Dordrecht.<br />
* Comrie, B. (1985). ''Tense''. Cambridge University Press.<br />
* Giorgi, A. &amp; F. Pianesi 1991. ''Toward a Syntax of Temporal Representations,'' Probus 3,<br />
* Gueron, J. &amp; T. Hoekstra 1988. ''T-chains and the Constituent Structure of Auxiliaries,'' in: A. Cardinaletti et al. (eds.) Constituent Structure, Foris, Dordrecht.<br />
* Hornstein, N. 1990. ''As time goes by,'' The MIT Press:Cambridge MA.<br />
* Klein, W. (1994). ''Time in Language''. London: Routledge.<br />
* Reichenbach, H. (1947). ''Elements of Symbolic Logic''. New York: Macmillan.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
* [http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Tense&lemmacode=144 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* [[:Portal:Tense and aspect]]<br />
* The [[tenses of English]]<br />
* [[absolute tense]]<br />
* [[relative tense]]<br />
* [[absolute-relative tense]]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Syntax]]<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Tense&diff=10762Tense2010-05-23T20:48:16Z<p>Volker gast: /* Definition */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Definition==<br />
'''Tense''' is traditinaly defined as a grammatical feature or (deictic) category expressing a temporal relation between the event described by the verb and the moment of utterance. <br />
<br />
Alternatively, '''tense''' can be defined as a grammatical feature or (deictic) category encoding a temporal relation between the [[topic time]] (Klein 1994) and an extra-linguistic reference point, the [[time of orientation]] (Huddleston & Pullum 2002).<br />
<br />
==Comment==<br />
Even though grammatical '''tense''' marking is found in the majority of the world's languages, there are also languages without grammaticalized tense (cf. Comrie 1985). Tense may either be marked by inflectional morphemes ('synthetic tense marking') or by free morphemes ('analytic tense marking').<br />
<br />
==Classification of temporal categories==<br />
A distinction can be made between (i) [[absolute tense]], (ii) [[relative tense]] and (iii) [[absolute-relative tense]] (Comrie 1985).<br />
<br />
The difference between absolute and relative tense is reflected in the use of time adverbials. Absolute time adverbials such as ''next year'', ''four hours ago'', ''in five days'' or ''tomorrow'' are related to the time of utterance. For example, ''tomorrow'' is the day after the day when the sentence is uttered. In contrast, relative time adverbials such as ''four hours before'', ''five days after'' or ''on the day before'' require an inner-textual reference point.<br />
<br />
==Theories of tense==<br />
<br />
The description of the models of time reference developed by Reichenbach (1947), Comrie (1985) and Klein (1994) are represented in chronological order.<br />
<br />
===Reichenbach (1947)===<br />
According to Reichenbach, temporal reference involves three parameters: 'S' (point of speech), 'E' (point of event) and 'R' (point of reference). These parameters stand in a relationship of temporal precedence to each other (marked by ‘-‘), or they occur simultaneously (marked by ‘,’). For example, 'R-S,E' means that the point of speech (S) and the event (E) are simultaneous, whereas the point of reference (R) is located prior to the event and the moment of speech.<br />
<br />
Three absolute tenses are distinguished, depending on the relationship between R and S (R=S: present, R-S: past, S-R: future). Aspect or relative tense is indicated by the relationship between E and R (E,R: simple, E-R: anterior, R-E: posterior). By combining the relation between R and S with the one between R and E, thirteen tenses can be distinguished. Two sets of three tenses can be subsumed under a single term, as natural languages do not normally seem to distinguish between them. <br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
|E-R-S <br />
|Anterior Past<br />
|-<br />
|E,R-S<br />
|Simple Past<br />
|-<br />
|R-E-S <br />
| rowspan="3" |<br />
Posterior Past<br />
|-<br />
|R-S,E <br />
|-<br />
|R-S-E<br />
|-<br />
|E-S,R<br />
|Anterior Present<br />
|-<br />
|S,R,E<br />
|Simple Present<br />
|-<br />
|S,R-E<br />
|Posterior Present<br />
|-<br />
|S-E-R<br />
| rowspan="3" |<br />
Anterior Future <br />
|-<br />
|S,E-R<br />
|-<br />
|E-S-R<br />
|-<br />
|S-R,E<br />
|Simple Future<br />
|-<br />
|S-R-E<br />
|Posterior Future<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Comrie (1985)===<br />
Comrie (1985) adopts the parameters used by Reichenbach (E, S, R). However, unlike in Reichenbach's system the distinction between [[absolute tenses]] and [[relative tenses]] is reflected in his theory. [[Absolute tenses]] only indicate a relationship between E and S. The parameter 'R' is only relevant to the interpretatio of [[absolute-relative tense]]s.<br />
<br />
E is related to S and (in the case of absolute-relative tenses) S to R in terms of the temporal relations 'simul', 'before' and 'after':<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
|E simul S || present tense<br />
|-<br />
|E before S || past tense<br />
|-<br />
|E after S || future tense<br />
|-<br />
|E before R before S || past perfect<br />
|-<br />
|E before R after S || future perfect<br />
|-<br />
|E after R before S || future in the past<br />
|-<br />
|E after R after S || future in the future<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Klein (1994)===<br />
Like Reichenbach and Comrie, Klein uses three parameters: time of utterance (TU), time of situation (Tsit) and topic time (TT). The [[topic time]] takes up a central position in his theory. It is defined as "the time span to which the speaker’s claim on this occasion is confined" (Klein 1994: 4).<br />
<br />
'''Tense''' is regarded as encoding a relationship between TT and TU. Three values are possible: incl (included in), after and before:<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
|TU incl TT || present tense<br />
|-<br />
|TU after TT || past tense<br />
|-<br />
|TU before TT || future tense<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The three basic temporal categories are cross-classified with three aspectual categories, corresponding to the relationship between TSit and TT. There are four possibilities: incl ('included in', imperfective), at ('partly included', perfective), after (perfect) and before (prospective). Accordingly, twelve tense-aspect categories can be distinguished:<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
| || past || present || future<br />
|-<br />
|imperfective || was sleeping || is sleeping || will be sleeping<br />
|-<br />
|perfective || slept || sleeps || will sleep<br />
|-<br />
|perfect || had slept || has slept || will have slept<br />
|-<br />
|prospective || was going to sleep || is going to sleep || will be going to sleep<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
* Chomsky, N. 1981. ''Lectures on Government and Binding,'' Foris, Dordrecht.<br />
* Comrie, B. (1985). ''Tense''. Cambridge University Press.<br />
* Giorgi, A. &amp; F. Pianesi 1991. ''Toward a Syntax of Temporal Representations,'' Probus 3,<br />
* Gueron, J. &amp; T. Hoekstra 1988. ''T-chains and the Constituent Structure of Auxiliaries,'' in: A. Cardinaletti et al. (eds.) Constituent Structure, Foris, Dordrecht.<br />
* Hornstein, N. 1990. ''As time goes by,'' The MIT Press:Cambridge MA.<br />
* Klein, W. (1994). ''Time in Language''. London: Routledge.<br />
* Reichenbach, H. (1947). ''Elements of Symbolic Logic''. New York: Macmillan.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
* [http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Tense&lemmacode=144 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* [[:Portal:Tense and aspect]]<br />
* The [[tenses of English]]<br />
* [[absolute tense]]<br />
* [[relative tense]]<br />
* [[absolute-relative tense]]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Syntax]]<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Maxim_of_relevance&diff=10689Maxim of relevance2010-03-30T17:37:17Z<p>Volker gast: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Definition=<br />
The '''maxim of relevance''' -- originally called the 'maxim of relation' by Grice (1975) -- is one of Grice's four [[conversational maxim]]s, which jointly constitute the [[cooperative principle]]. Grice (1975: 47) defines it as follows: "I expect a partner’s contribution to be appropriate to immediate needs at each stage of the transaction".<br />
<br />
Leech (1983: 94) provides the following definition of the notion of relevance: "An utterance U is relevant to a speech situation if U can be interpreted as contributing to the conversational goal(s) of speaker or hearer". Leech states that the speaker strives for a certain goal by stating his question and that the hearer adopts this goal when giving an answer.<br />
<br />
=Example=<br />
<br />
In many cases the relevance of an answer needs to be inferred on the basis of information from the context. Leech (1983: 94) provides the following example:<br />
<br />
A: Where is my box of chocolates?<br><br />
B: It’s in your room.<br />
<br />
can be compared to<br />
<br />
A: Where is my box of chocolates?<br><br />
B: The children were in your room this morning.<br />
<br />
B’s contribution in the first example abides by the maxim of relevance, since a direct and appropriate answer to the question is given. B’s answer in the second example appears not to be relevant to the question at first sight. However, the second example could still be relevant to the speaker. A will assume that B abides by the cooperative principle and will therefore infer that specific implied meanings are being conveyed. In the example given, such implicatures could be that the children may have eaten the chocolate, or that the children may know where the chocolate is, as they were in A’s room.<br />
<br />
=Comments=<br />
According to Grice, the maxim of relevance cannot easily be flouted, as speakers will always try to establish a relation to preceding discourse, or extract metalinguistic information from an utterance. Grice (1975: 54) discusses the following example:<br />
<br />
A: Mrs. X is an old bag.<br><br />
B: The weather has been quite delightful this summer, hasn’t it?<br />
<br />
The maxim of relevance appears to be flouted, but B's utterance is nonetheless interpretable in context, as the communicative intention conveyed in this case is a change of subject. <br />
<br />
The principle of relevance constitutes the basis of Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson 1986), who interpret the term differently from Grice, however.<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
* Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), ''Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts'', 41-58. New York: Academic Press.<br />
* Leech, G. (1983). ''Principles of Pragmatics''. London: Longman.<br />
* Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson (1995). ''Relevance: Communication and Cognition''. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. <br />
<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Pragmatics]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Maxim_of_relevance&diff=10688Maxim of relevance2010-03-30T17:37:02Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Definition=<br />
The '''maxim of relevance''' -- originally called the 'maxim of relation' by Grice (1975) -- is one of Grice's four [[conversational maxim]]s, which jointly constitute the [[cooperative principle]]. Grice (1975: 47) defines it as follows: "I expect a partner’s contribution to be appropriate to immediate needs at each stage of the transaction".<br />
<br />
Leech (1983: 94) provides the following definition of the notion of relevance: "An utterance U is relevant to a speech situation if U can be interpreted as contributing to the conversational goal(s) of speaker or hearer". Leech states that the speaker strives for a certain goal by stating his question and that the hearer adopts this goal when giving an answer.<br />
<br />
=Example=<br />
<br />
In many cases the relevance of an answer needs to be inferred on the basis of information from the context. Leech (1983: 94) provides the following example:<br />
<br />
A: Where is my box of chocolates?<br><br />
B: It’s in your room.<br />
<br />
can be compared to<br />
<br />
A: Where is my box of chocolates?<br><br />
B: The children were in your room this morning.<br />
<br />
B’s contribution in the first example abides by the maxim of relevance, since a direct and appropriate answer to the question is given. B’s answer in the second example appears not to be relevant to the question at first sight. However, the second example could still be relevant to the speaker. A will assume that B abides by the cooperative principle and will therefore infer that specific implied meanings are being conveyed. In the example given, such implicatures could be that the children may have eaten the chocolate, or that the children may know where the chocolate is, as they were in A’s room.<br />
<br />
=Comments=<br />
According to Grice, the maxim of relevance cannot easily be flouted, as speakers will always try to establish a relation to preceding discourse, or extract metalinguistic information from an utterance. Grice (1975: 54) discusses the following example:<br />
<br />
A: Mrs. X is an old bag.<br><br />
B: The weather has been quite delightful this summer, hasn’t it?<br />
<br />
The maxim of relevance appears to be flouted, but B's utterance is nonetheless interpretable in context, as the communicative intention conveyed in this case is a change of subject. <br />
<br />
The principle of relevance constitutes the basis of Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson 1986), who interpret the term differently from Grice, however.<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
* Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), ''Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts'', 41-58. New York: Academic Press.<br />
* Leech, G. (1983). ''Principles of Pragmatics''. London: Longman.<br />
* Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. <br />
<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Pragmatics]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Maxim_of_relevance&diff=10687Maxim of relevance2010-03-30T17:36:05Z<p>Volker gast: extracted from a term paper by Jennifer Förster</p>
<hr />
<div>=Definition=<br />
The '''maxim of relevance''' -- originally called the 'maxim of relation' by Grice (1975) -- is one of Grice's four [[conversational maxim]]s, which jointly constitute the [[cooperative principle]]. Grice (1975: 47) defines it as follows: "I expect a partner’s contribution to be appropriate to immediate needs at each stage of the transaction".<br />
<br />
Leech (1983: 94) provides the following definition of the notion of relevance: "An utterance U is relevant to a speech situation if U can be interpreted as contributing to the conversational goal(s) of speaker or hearer". Leech states that the speaker strives for a certain goal by stating his question and that the hearer adopts this goal when giving an answer.<br />
<br />
=Example=<br />
<br />
In many cases the relevance of an answer needs to be inferred on the basis of information from the context. Leech (1983: 94) provides the following example:<br />
<br />
A: Where is my box of chocolates?<br><br />
B: It’s in your room.<br />
<br />
can be compared to<br />
<br />
A: Where is my box of chocolates?<br><br />
B: The children were in your room this morning.<br />
<br />
B’s contribution in the first example abides by the maxim of relevance, since a direct and appropriate answer to the question is given. B’s answer in the second example appears not to be relevant to the question at first sight. However, the second example could still be relevant to the speaker. A will assume that B abides by the cooperative principle and will therefore infer that specific implied meanings are being conveyed. In the example given, such implicatures could be that the children may have eaten the chocolate, or that the children may know where the chocolate is, as they were in A’s room.<br />
<br />
=Comments=<br />
According to Grice, the maxim of relevance cannot easily be flouted, as speakers will always try to establish a relation to preceding discourse, or extract metalinguistic information from an utterance. Grice (1975: 54) discusses the following example:<br />
<br />
A: Mrs. X is an old bag.<br><br />
B: The weather has been quite delightful this summer, hasn’t it?<br />
<br />
The maxim of relevance appears to be flouted, but B's utterance is nonetheless interpretable in context, as the communicative intention conveyed in this case is a change of subject. <br />
<br />
The principle of relevance constitutes the basis of Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson 1986), who interpret the term differently from Grice, however.<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
* Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), ''Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts'', 41-58. New York: Academic Press.<br />
* Leech, G. (1983). ''Principles of Pragmatics''. London: Longman.<br />
* Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. <br />
<br />
<br />
{{dc}}</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Perfective&diff=10626Perfective2010-02-10T14:34:29Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Definition==<br />
The '''perfective aspect''' is a category of [[aspect]] that contrasts with the [[imperfective aspect]].<br />
<br />
The '''perfective aspect''' “[views] the situation from outside, without necessarily distinguishing any of the internal structure of the situation” (Bache 1995: 269). 'Viewing a situation from outside' means focusing on the situation as a whole, i.e. in its entirety and as complete, regardless of its internal structure. Huddleston and Pullum (2002), basically adopting the model of Klein (1994), define '''perfective aspect''' by relating T<sub>R</sub> ('time referred to') to T<sub>SIT</sub> ('situational time'). Perfective aspect is accordingly defined as a property of situations in which T<sub>R</sub> entirely includes T<sub>SIT</sub> (Huddleston und Pullum 2002: 124f.).<br />
<br />
Bache (1995: 277) provides the following formula for the perfective aspect: <br />
<br />
:SF [T<sub>i</sub> ... T<sub>t</sub>] on Sx.<br />
<br />
He determines SF as ‘situational focus’, T<sub>i</sub> and T<sub>t</sub> as ‘any given situation’ which must take place at a particular place and time. Applied to the example given below, T<sub>i</sub> is the beginning of TR, i.e. 4 p.m. and T<sub>t</sub> is the terminal point of T<sub>R</sub>, i.e. 5 p.m. S<sub>x</sub> is the situation described by the verb form in the declarative sentence, i.e. 'take a nap'. The situational focus (SF) is on a situation between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m., and the past tense indicates that within that period of time (TR) the situation is completed in its entirety.<br />
<br />
Even though the perfective aspect describes 'complete' situations, the situations are not 'completed': 'The use of "completed"... puts too much emphasis on the termination of the situation, whereas the use of the perfective puts no more emphasis, necessarily, on the end of the situation than on any other part of the situation.' (Comrie 1976: 18)<br />
<br />
==Examples==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Perf1.JPG]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:Perf2.JPG]]<br />
<br />
==Literature==<br />
<br />
* Bache, Carl. ''The Study of Aspect, Tense and Action.'' Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1995.<br />
* Comrie, Bernard. ''Aspect''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1976.<br />
* Downing, Angela and Philip Locke. ''English Grammar: A University Course.'' 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 2006.<br />
* Huddleston, Rodney D. and Geoffrey K. Pullum. ''The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.'' Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002.<br />
* Klein, Wolfgang. ''Time in Language.'' London: Routledge, 1994.<br />
<br />
{{dc}}</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Perfective&diff=10625Perfective2010-02-10T14:34:05Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Definition==<br />
The '''perfective aspect''' is a category of [[aspect]] that contrasts with the [[imperfective aspect]].<br />
<br />
The '''perfective aspect''' “[views] the situation from outside, without necessarily distinguishing any of the internal structure of the situation” (Bache 1995: 269). 'Viewing a situation from outside' means focusing on the situation as a whole, i.e. in its entirety and as complete, regardless of its internal structure. Huddleston and Pullum (2002), basically adopting the model of Klein (1994), define '''perfective aspect''' by relating T<sub>R</sub> ('time referred to') to T<sub>SIT</sub> ('situational time'). Perfective aspect is accordingly defined as a property of situations in which T<sub>R</sub> entirely includes T<sub>SIT</sub> (Huddleston und Pullum 2002: 124f.).<br />
<br />
Bache (1995: 277) provides the following formula for the perfective aspect: <br />
<br />
:SF [T<sub>i</sub> ... T<sub>t</sub>] on Sx.<br />
<br />
He determines SF as ‘situational focus’, T<sub>i</sub> and T<sub>t</sub> as ‘any given situation’ which must take place at a particular place and time. Applied to the example given below, T<sub>i</sub> is the beginning of TR, i.e. 4 p.m. and T<sub>t</sub> is the terminal point of T<sub>R</sub>, i.e. 5 p.m. S<sub>x</sub> is the situation described by the verb form in the declarative sentence, i.e. 'take a nap'. The situational focus (SF) is on a situation between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m., and the past tense indicates that within that period of time (TR) the situation is completed in its entirety.<br />
<br />
Even though the perfective aspect describes 'complete' situations, the situations are not 'completed': 'The use of "completed"... puts too much emphasis on the termination of the situation, whereas the use of the perfective puts no more emphasis, necessarily, on the end of the situation than on any other part of the situation.' (Comrie 1976: 18)<br />
<br />
==Examples==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Perf1.JPG]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:Perf2.JPG]]<br />
<br />
==Literature==<br />
<br />
* Bache, Carl. ''The Study of Aspect, Tense and Action.'' Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1995.<br />
* Comrie, Bernard. ''Aspect''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1976.<br />
* Downing, Angela and Philip Locke. ''English Grammar: A University Course.'' 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 2006.<br />
* Huddleston, Rodney D. and Geoffrey K. Pullum. ''The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.'' Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002.<br />
* Klein, Wolfgang. ''Time in Language.'' London: Routledge, 1994.<br />
<br />
{{dict}}</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=File:Perf2.JPG&diff=10624File:Perf2.JPG2010-02-10T14:31:37Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=File:Perf1.JPG&diff=10623File:Perf1.JPG2010-02-10T14:31:27Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Perfective&diff=10622Perfective2010-02-10T14:29:47Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Definition==<br />
The '''perfective aspect''' is a category of [[aspect]] that contrasts with the [[imperfective aspect]].<br />
<br />
The '''perfective aspect''' “[views] the situation from outside, without necessarily distinguishing any of the internal structure of the situation” (Bache 1995: 269). 'Viewing a situation from outside' means focusing on the situation as a whole, i.e. in its entirety and as complete, regardless of its internal structure. Huddleston and Pullum (2002), basically adopting the model of Klein (1994), define '''perfective aspect''' by relating T<sub>R</sub> ('time referred to') to T<sub>SIT</sub> ('situational time'). Perfective aspect is accordingly defined as a property of situations in which T<sub>R</sub> entirely includes T<sub>SIT</sub> (Huddleston und Pullum 2002: 124f.).<br />
<br />
Bache (1995: 277) provides the following formula for the perfective aspect: <br />
<br />
:SF [T<sub>i</sub> ... T<sub>t</sub>] on Sx.<br />
<br />
He determines SF as ‘situational focus’, T<sub>i</sub> and T<sub>t</sub> as ‘any given situation’ which must take place at a particular place and time. Applied to the example given below, T<sub>i</sub> is the beginning of TR, i.e. 4 p.m. and T<sub>t</sub> is the terminal point of T<sub>R</sub>, i.e. 5 p.m. S<sub>x</sub> is the situation described by the verb form in the declarative sentence, i.e. 'take a nap'. The situational focus (SF) is on a situation between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m., and the past tense indicates that within that period of time (TR) the situation is completed in its entirety.<br />
<br />
Even though the perfective aspect describes 'complete' situations, the situations are not 'completed': 'The use of "completed"... puts too much emphasis on the termination of the situation, whereas the use of the perfective puts no more emphasis, necessarily, on the end of the situation than on any other part of the situation.' (Comrie 1976: 18)<br />
<br />
==Examples==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Perf1.JPG]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:Perf2.JPG]]<br />
<br />
==Literature==<br />
<br />
* Bache, Carl. ''The Study of Aspect, Tense and Action.'' Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1995.<br />
* Comrie, Bernard. ''Aspect''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1976.<br />
* Downing, Angela and Philip Locke. ''English Grammar: A University Course.'' 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 2006.<br />
* Huddleston, Rodney D. and Geoffrey K. Pullum. ''The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.'' Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002.<br />
* Klein, Wolfgang. ''Time in Language.'' London: Routledge, 1994.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Register_(discourse)&diff=10597Register (discourse)2010-02-05T10:14:42Z<p>Volker gast: based on a term paper by Manuela Sturmhöfel</p>
<hr />
<div>==Definition==<br />
<br />
In [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociolinguistics sociolinguistics], the term '''register''' refers to specific lexical and grammatical choices as made by speakers depending on the situational context, the participants of a conversation and the function of the language in the discourse (cf. Halliday 1989, 44). According to [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/252852/M-A-K-Halliday M.A.K. Halliday], there are two main types of variation in language, social and functional. [[Dialect]]s arr characterized by social or regional variation, whereas '''register''' concerns functional variation. However, these two notions are not entirely independent of each other. Hudson (1993, 51) states that “one man’s dialect is another man’s register.”, i.e. linguistic features which are part of one speaker’s dialect might belong to a specific register for another speaker. Nevertheless, many linguists hold the view that speakers often only control one or two social varieties of language (standard and dialect), while they use a “wide range of registers” (Barnickel 1982, 13; Biber 2000, 135; Halliday 1990, 43; Trudgill 1983). <br />
<br />
In contrast to [[dialect]], which Halliday (1990, 41) defines as a “variety of language according to the user”, register focuses on the “variety according to use.” Thus, register is characterized by “differences in the type of language selected as appropriate to different types of situation” (Halliday et. al. 1964, 87), which means that there is a close relationship between language and context of situation. Most linguists agree with this definition. However, two perspectives of register classification can be distinguished. The first approach, as proposed by Halliday (1989, 44) and Hymes (1979, 244), is context-based. The second perspective differentiates registers on the basis of text collections (Biber 1994, 20).<br />
<br />
==Context-based register categorization==<br />
<br />
M.A.K. Halliday, who was one of the first linguists to pay special attention to the concept of 'register' in the 1960s and 1970s, interprets this notion as “a semantic concept” which “can be defined as a configuration of meanings that are typically associated with a particular situational configuration of field, mode, and tenor.” (Halliday 1990, 38f.) The linguistic features (specific expressions, lexico-grammatical and phonological features) and the particular values of the three dimensions of field, mode and tenor determine the functional variety of a language (cf. Halliday 1994, 22). These three parameters can be used to specify the context of situation in which language is used. <br />
<br />
[[Field of discourse]] is defined as “the total event, in which the text is functioning, together with the purposive activity of the speaker or writer; it thus includes the subject-matter as one element in it” (Halliday 1994, 22). The field describes activities and processes that are happening at the time of speech. The analysis of this parameter focuses on the entire situation, e.g. when a mother talks to her child. <br />
<br />
The [[mode of discourse]] refers to “the function of the text in the event, including therefore both the channel taken by the language – spoken or written, extempore or prepared – and its [genre], or rhetorical mode, as narrative, didactic, persuasive, ‘[[phatic communion]]’ and so on” (Halliday 1994, 22). This variable determines the role and function of language in a particular situation. When analyzing the mode of a text, the main question is ‘What is achieved by the use of language in this context?’ For example, a fairy tale (in written form) may have a narrative or entertaining function. A spoken conversation can be argumentative (in a discussion) or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic phatic] (e.g. to contact someone or to keep in touch with someone). <br />
<br />
[[Tenor of discourse]] (sometimes also referred to as style; cf. Esser 2009, 78) describes the people that take part in an event as well as their relationships and statuses. “The tenor refers to the type of role interaction, the set of relevant social relations, permanent and temporary, among the participants involved” (Halliday 1994, 22.). There might be a specific hierarchy between the interlocutors, e.g. when the head of a business talks to an employee, or they may have only a temporary relationship, e.g. when a person asks an unknown pedestrian for the time. <br />
<br />
All three variables (field, mode, tenor) taken together enable people to characterize the situational context specifically, and, thus, to recreate part of the language that is being used (cf. Halliday 1994, 22f.). Halliday provides the following example to explain the significance of collective information about the three parameters: <br />
<br />
<blockquote> “For instance, if we specify a field such as ‘personal interaction, at the end of the day, with the aim of inducing contentment through recounting of familiar events’, with mode ‘spoken monologue, imaginative narrative, extempore’ and tenor ‘intimate, mother and three-year-old child’, we can reconstruct a great deal of this kind of bedtime story […].” (Halliday 1994, 22f.)</blockquote><br />
<br />
Halliday looks at register from the “system end" (Teich 2003, 27). This means that he infers from the context of situation which linguistic structure and patterns are likely or unlikely to be used in a text. Field, mode and tenor of discourse describe the context of a situation in which language is used. Register, however, is defined as a functional variety of language according to the use in particular settings. Hence, Halliday connected three distinct functions of language with the three dimensions of a situation mentioned above. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>“The functional components of the semantic system of a language [are] (a) ideational, subdivided into logical and experiential; (b) interpersonal; and (c) textual. [...] the field is reflected in the experiential meanings of the text, the tenor in the interpersonal, and the mode in the textual meanings.” (Halliday 1990, 29)</blockquote> <br />
<br />
Halliday’s concept of register is rather broad and does not provide a set of clear-cut registers. According to his definition and approach, many different kinds of register exist in language. He only distinguishes closed and open registers from each other. Closed (or restricted) registers have a number of possible meanings that are “fixed and finite and may be quite small” (Halliday 1990, 39). Examples for closed registers include the 'language of the air' or 'the languages of games' (Halliday 1990, 39). Sometimes these registers have a special language of their own. In open registers, “the range of the discourse is much less constrained” (Halliday 1990, 39), e.g. in letters and instructions. Nevertheless, Halliday points out that there are no registers that are entirely open. “The most open-ended kinds of register [are] the registers of informal narrative and spontaneous conversation” (Halliday 1990, 40). It does not become entirely clear in Halliday’s approach how many registers exist and how they can be separated from another.<br />
<br />
Similar to Halliday’s concept of register, [http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/fghij/hymes_dell.html Dell Hymes] developed the ‘Model of interaction of language and social setting’ (the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Hymes#The_.22S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G.22_model S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G model]) to categorize speech situations. With the help of eight components, speakers may characterize the context of an interaction, and, thus, make correct use of language. Hymes’ variables of discourse are: (i) setting, (ii) participants, (iii) ends, (iv) form and content of text, (v) key, (vi) interactional norms, (vii) medium and (viii) genre (cf. Halliday 1994, 22). This approach, too, suggests that there are countless different language situations and, therefore, registers. Hymes also indicates that there are still many variables and patterns that have to be discovered and classified (Hymes 1979, 244).<br />
<br />
Quirk et. al. (1989, 25) do not define register explicitly, but they describe varieties according to field of discourse, medium and attitude. In fact, this conforms to Halliday’s concept of register, although they never make use of this term. Yet, Quirk et. al. (1989, 25) present a “five-term distinction” to categorize linguistic varieties, and, thus, they narrow down the range of registers: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>'''very formal – FORMAL – neutral – INFORMAL – very informal'''</blockquote><br />
<br />
The very formal variety of language (“extremely distant, rigid or frozen”; Quirk et. al. 1989, 27) is often found in written instructions. Very informal language, which is also called 'intimate, casual, slangy, or hearty' (ibid.) is used between family members or close friends. However, Quirk et. al. point out that the inner three-way distinction of formal – neutral – informal is chiefly used to designate language. <br />
<br />
Halliday, Hymes and Quirk et. al. have similar notions of register. They focus on the context of a language situation and they identify registers on the basis of this knowledge.<br />
<br />
==Text-based register categorization==<br />
<br />
Libe Halliday (1990, 1994), [http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~biber/ Douglas Biber] defines the term '''register''' as “situationally defined varieties” (Biber 1995, 1). He also agrees with Halliday in that “important components of the situational context include the purpose of communication, the physical mode (spoken or written), the production circumstances, and various demographic characteristics of the speaker/writer” must be taken into consideration (Biber 1999, 5). However, Biber chiefly focuses on the grammatical characteristics of different text types(cf. Biber 1999, 8). He does not infer from the context which linguistic features will probably occur in a [[text]]. Rather, “he looks at register only from the text end as a set of texts that exhibit relatively high/low frequencies of occurrence of particular grammatical features” (Teich 2003, 27). Biber distributes registers to different kinds of texts, and afterwards he investigates linguistic differences or similarities. “Registers share many linguistic features – such as nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. – and they are distinguished by the relative use of these features” (Biber 2000, 136). According to Biber, several linguistically and situationally similar kinds of texts constitute a register. <br />
<br />
In his corpus-based approach to English grammar, Biber (1999) considers four major registers: [[conversation]], [[fiction]], [[newspaper language]], and [[academic prose]] (cf. Biber 1999, 8). However, he also points out that registers can be defined “at almost any level of generality” (Biber 1999, 15). The four registers of his approach can be further subdivided, e.g. newspaper writing includes news reportage and editorials as well as reviews (cf. Biber 1999, 17). This means that there is, like in Halliday’s approach, a considerable amount of possible registers. In his analysis, Biber examines lexico-grammatical structures of text samples from each register and concentrates on the actual use of these features in different varieties of English (Biber 1999, 4). In this way, he can describe a specific register according to its linguistic features, and it is possible to distinguish the major registers from each other, with more or less clear-cut boundaries.<br />
<br />
==Register Classification in the Oxford English Dictionary==<br />
<br />
In the [http://www.oed.com/ Oxford English Dictionary (OED)] the entries are classified according to the use of an expression in different language situations. Generally, all entries are classified as 'standard'. Additionally, some expressions are categorized differently according to the particular contexts in which they are appropriately used. The main register labels in the Oxford Thesaurus of English (2006) are the following:<br />
<br />
* '''Informal:''' normally used only in contexts such as conversations or letters between friends<br />
* '''Vulgar slang:''' informal language that may cause offence […]<br />
* '''Formal:''' normally used only in writing such as official documents<br />
* '''Technical:''' normally used in technical and specialist language, though not necessarily restricted to any specific field<br />
* '''Literary:''' found only or mainly in literature written in an ‘elevated’ style<br />
* '''Dated:''' no longer used by the majority of English speakers […]<br />
* '''Historical:''' still used today, but only to refer to some practice or article that is no longer part of the modern world<br />
* '''Humorous:''' used with the intention of sounding funny or playful<br />
* '''Archaic:''' very old-fashioned language, not in ordinary use at all today […]<br />
* '''Rare:''' not in common use”<br />
<br />
(Oxford Thesaurus of English 2006, Introduction ix)<br />
<br />
<br />
This register classification is probably most common in English today. However, many other types of register are used in different dictionaries.<br />
<br />
==Criticism==<br />
<br />
The use of the term register was criticized in the 1970s by [http://www.davidcrystal.com/ David Crystal], who viewed the term as being indiscriminately applied to every possible variety of language. Since there is no restriction on the range of application for the term 'register', an infinite number of registers can be identified:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“This term has been applied to varieties of language in an almost indiscriminate manner, as if it could be usefully applied to situationally distinctive pieces of language of any kind. […] It is inconsistent, unrealistic, and confusing to obscure these differences by grouping everything under the same heading […].” (Crystal 1976, 61)</blockquote><br />
<br />
Moreover, Crystal criticized that different situational contexts have not been sufficiently studied to establish a finite set of register labels (cf. Crystal 1976, 61). Still, the term register is widely used today and provides a useful parameter of linguistic analysis.<br />
<br />
==References and recommended reading==<br />
<br />
<br />
*Barnickel, Klaus-Dieter (1982). Sprachliche Varianten des Englischen: Register und Stile. München: Hueber. <br />
*Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan (1994). Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. New York: Oxford University Press.<br />
*Biber, Douglas (1995). Dimensions of register variation: a cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
*Biber, Douglas (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.<br />
*Biber, Douglas; Conrad, Susan and Randi Reppen (2000). Corpus linguistics: investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
*Crystal, David (1976). Investigating English Style. London: Longman.<br />
*Esser, Jürgen (2009). Introduction to English text-linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.<br />
*Halliday, Michael A.K. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.<br />
*Halliday, Michael A.K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
*Halliday, Michael A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan (1990). Language, context, and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
*Halliday, Michael A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan (1994). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.<br />
*Hudson, Richard A. (1993). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
*Hymes, Dell (1979). Soziolinguistik: zur Ethnographie der Kommunikation. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.<br />
*Oxford thesaurus of English (2006). Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
*Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney and Geoffrey Leech (1989). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.<br />
*Teich, Elke (2003). Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Text available at: [http://books.google.de/books?id=wxjZO8_sn68C&printsec=frontcover&dq=cross-linguistic+variation&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false]<br />
*Trudgill, Peter (1983). Sociolinguistics: an introduction to language and society. London: Penguin Books.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Register&diff=10596Register2010-02-05T10:13:24Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{disambig}}<br />
<br />
* [[Register (in phonetics)]]<br />
* [[Register (discourse)]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Maxim_of_manner&diff=10595Maxim of manner2010-02-04T18:46:09Z<p>Volker gast: based on a term paper by Marion Paulick</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''maxim of manner''' is one of the Gricean [[conversational maxim]]s which constitute the [[Cooperative Principle]]. It makes the following requirements:<br />
<br />
* ‘Be perspicuous’<br />
** Avoid obscurity of expression.<br />
** Avoid ambiguity.<br />
** Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).<br />
** Be orderly.<br />
<br />
The '''maxim of manner''' thus relates "not [...] to what is said but, rather, to HOW what is said to be said [...]" (Grice 1975: 46).<br />
<br />
An elaboration of the Gricean maxim of manner was proposed by Leech (1983: 100), who distinguishes two kinds of clarity: "One kind consists in making unambiguous use of syntax and phonology of the language in order to construct a clear text. Another type [...] consists in framing a clear message, ie a message which is perspicuous or intelligible in the sense of conveying the intended illocutionary goal to the addressee."<br />
<br />
Horn (1984) suggests that all maxims (except of the Maxim of Quality) should be replaced with two principles: the Q(uantity) principle and the R(elation) principle. With respect to the maxim of manner, the R principle states: "Make your contribution necessary; say no more than you must (given Q)." (Horn 1984: 134). With respect to manner, the two principle ''maximization of informational content'' (avoidance of ambiguity/obscurity) and ''minimization of form'' (be brief) are identified Horn.<br />
<br />
Levinson (2000) distinguishes between minimization of content and minimization of form where general and shorter expressions are favored. He states a 'Q-' and an 'I-principle'.<br />
<br />
*Q: "Do not provide a statement that is informationally weaker than your knowledge of the world allows, unless providing a stronger statement would contravene the I-principle." (Levinson 2000: 76)<br />
*I: "Say as little as necessary, that is produce the minimal linguistic information sufficient to achieve your communicational ends (bearing the Q-principal in mind)." (Levinson 2000: 114)<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Levinson refers to 'heuristics', i.e. "constraints that limit the search space of sets of premises" (Levinson 2000: 31) in connection with communicative intentions. There are three heuristics:<br />
<br />
*What isn’t said, isn’t<br />
*What is simply described is stereotypically exemplified<br />
*What’s said in an abnormal way, isn’t normal; or Marked message indicates marked situation<br />
<br />
The first heuristic ('Q-heuristic') corresponds to the first submaxim and the second one ('I-heuristic') to the second submaxim of the Maxim of Quantity. The third heuristic ('M-heuristic') relates to the maxim of manner, in particular to the rule ''avoid obscurity of expression''. Levinson argues that on the basis of the H-heuristic, stereotypical and complementary interpretations can be achieved: "what is said simply, briefly, in an unmarked way picks up a stereotypical interpretation; if in contrast a marked expression is used, it is suggested that the stereotypical interpretation should be avoided." (Levinson 2000: 38). Levinson substantiates his argument with the following example including double negation (Levinson 2000: 39):<br />
<br />
*"It’s possible the plane will be late." ->Simple positive suggests that the plane may be late as this is often the case.<br />
*"It’s not possible that the plane will be late." ->Double negative shows that there is a rather minor possibility.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Examples==<br />
<br />
* A: I hear you went to the opera last night; how was the lead singer?<br />
* B: The singer produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to the score of an aria from 'Rigoletto'. (Levinson 1983)<br />
<br />
B flouts the maxim of manner, as the sentence is unnecessarily prolix.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* M-Principle<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
* [http://www2.let.uu.nl/Uil-OTS/Lexicon/ Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
* Brown.edu Grice’s Conversational Maxims. 26 Jul 2009 <http://www.cog.brown.edu/courses/cg45/lecture%20slides/Gricean%20Maxims.pdf><br />
* [http://books.google.de/books?id=LSJbj_GQBcoC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=maxim+of+manner+horn&source=bl&ots=wBmVtbukZu&sig=Jg2R5iqZd03BnspEw4yxLp9YduY&hl=de&ei=LwDCSs_5LseG4Qbl_5WLCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=maxim%20of%20manner%20horn&f=false books.Google.de Horn - Maxim of Manner. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse. 29 Sept 2009]<br />
* [http://books.google.de/books?id=lW36ropcz9wC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=levinson+2000+Q,+I+M+principle&source=bl&ots=LHnUY1CQGw&sig=ldNNT5xlwPMRiaFRUIyxIh7FWTY&hl=de&ei=vwbCSq2XAZSw4QatsZSLCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=levinson%202000%20Q%2C%20I%20M%20principle&f=false books.Google.de Levinson 2000 - Q,I,M Principle. Zitat und Bedeutung. 29 Sept 2009]<br />
<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
* Atlas, J. and S. Levinson (1981) It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form, In: P. Cole ed., Radical Pragmatics, 1-61, New York: Academic Press.<br />
* Horn, Lawrence. (1984) Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature, In: D. Schiffrin ed., Meaning, Form and Use in Context (GURT '84), 11-42, Washington: Georgetown University Press.<br />
* Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), ''Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts'', 41-58. New York: Academic Press.<br />
* Leech, G. (1983/1995). ''Principle of Pragmatics''. 9th edition. London: Longman.<br />
* Levinson, S. (2000). ''Presumptive Meanings – The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature''. Cambridge: MIT Press.<br />
* Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1986) ''Relevance: Communication and Cognition'', Oxford: Blackwell.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Pragmatics]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Maxim_of_manner&diff=10594Maxim of manner2010-02-04T18:43:35Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''maxim of manner''' is one of the Gricean [[conversational maxim]]s which constitute the [[Cooperative Principle]]. It makes the following requirements:<br />
<br />
* ‘Be perspicuous’<br />
** Avoid obscurity of expression.<br />
** Avoid ambiguity.<br />
** Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).<br />
** Be orderly.<br />
<br />
The '''maxim of manner''' thus relates "not [...] to what is said but, rather, to HOW what is said to be said [...]" (Grice 1975: 46).<br />
<br />
An elaboration of the Gricean maxim of manner was proposed by Leech (1983: 100), who distinguishes two kinds of clarity: "One kind consists in making unambiguous use of syntax and phonology of the language in order to construct a clear text. Another type [...] consists in framing a clear message, ie a message which is perspicuous or intelligible in the sense of conveying the intended illocutionary goal to the addressee."<br />
<br />
Horn (1984) suggests that all maxims (except of the Maxim of Quality) should be replaced with two principles: the Q(uantity) principle and the R(elation) principle. With respect to the maxim of manner, the R principle states: "Make your contribution necessary; say no more than you must (given Q)." (Horn 1984: 134). With respect to manner, the two principle ''maximization of informational content'' (avoidance of ambiguity/obscurity) and ''minimization of form'' (be brief) are identified Horn.<br />
<br />
Levinson (2000) distinguishes between minimization of content and minimization of form where general and shorter expressions are favored. He states a 'Q-' and an 'I-principle'.<br />
<br />
*Q: "Do not provide a statement that is informationally weaker than your knowledge of the world allows, unless providing a stronger statement would contravene the I-principle." (Levinson 2000: 76)<br />
*I: "Say as little as necessary, that is produce the minimal linguistic information sufficient to achieve your communicational ends (bearing the Q-principal in mind)." (Levinson 2000: 114)<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Levinson refers to 'heuristics', which (roughly) correspond to Grice’s maxims. Heuristics are "constraints that limit the search space of sets of premises" (Levinson 2000: 31) in connection with communicative intentions. There are three heuristics:<br />
<br />
*What isn’t said, isn’t<br />
*What is simply described is stereotypically exemplified<br />
*What’s said in an abnormal way, isn’t normal; or Marked message indicates marked situation<br />
<br />
The first heuristic ('Q-heuristic') corresponds to the first submaxim and the second one ('I-heuristic') to the second submaxim of the Maxim of Quantity. The third heuristic ('M-heuristic') refers to the maxim of manner, in particular to the rule ''avoid obscurity of expression''. Levinson argues that on the basis of the H-heuristic, stereotypical and complementary interpretations can be achieved: "what is said simply, briefly, in an unmarked way picks up a stereotypical interpretation; if in contrast a marked expression is used, it is suggested that the stereotypical interpretation should be avoided." (Levinson 2000:38). Levinson substantiates his argument with the following example including double negation (Levinson 2000: 39):<br />
<br />
*"It’s possible the plane will be late." ->Simple positive suggests that the plane may be late as this is often the case.<br />
*"It’s not possible that the plane will be late." ->Double negative shows that there is a rather minor possibility.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Examples==<br />
<br />
* A: I hear you went to the opera last night; how was the lead singer?<br />
* B: The singer produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to the score of an aria from 'Rigoletto'. (Levinson 1983: ***)<br />
<br />
B flouts the maxim of manner, as the sentence is unnecessarily prolix.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* M-Principle<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
* [http://www2.let.uu.nl/Uil-OTS/Lexicon/ Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
* Brown.edu Grice’s Conversational Maxims. 26 Jul 2009 <http://www.cog.brown.edu/courses/cg45/lecture%20slides/Gricean%20Maxims.pdf><br />
* [http://books.google.de/books?id=LSJbj_GQBcoC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=maxim+of+manner+horn&source=bl&ots=wBmVtbukZu&sig=Jg2R5iqZd03BnspEw4yxLp9YduY&hl=de&ei=LwDCSs_5LseG4Qbl_5WLCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=maxim%20of%20manner%20horn&f=false books.Google.de Horn - Maxim of Manner. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse. 29 Sept 2009]<br />
* [http://books.google.de/books?id=lW36ropcz9wC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=levinson+2000+Q,+I+M+principle&source=bl&ots=LHnUY1CQGw&sig=ldNNT5xlwPMRiaFRUIyxIh7FWTY&hl=de&ei=vwbCSq2XAZSw4QatsZSLCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=levinson%202000%20Q%2C%20I%20M%20principle&f=false books.Google.de Levinson 2000 - Q,I,M Principle. Zitat und Bedeutung. 29 Sept 2009]<br />
<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
* Atlas, J. and S. Levinson (1981) It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form, In: P. Cole ed., Radical Pragmatics, 1-61, New York: Academic Press.<br />
* Horn, Lawrence. (1984) Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature, In: D. Schiffrin ed., Meaning, Form and Use in Context (GURT '84), 11-42, Washington: Georgetown University Press.<br />
* Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), ''Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts'', 41-58. New York: Academic Press.<br />
* Leech, G. (1983/1995). ''Principle of Pragmatics''. 9th edition. London: Longman.<br />
* Levinson, S. (2000). ''Presumptive Meanings – The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature''. Cambridge: MIT Press.<br />
* Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1986) ''Relevance: Communication and Cognition'', Oxford: Blackwell.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Pragmatics]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Maxim_of_manner&diff=10593Maxim of manner2010-02-04T18:41:49Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''maxim of manner''' is one of the Gricean [[conversational maxim]]s which constitute the [[Cooperative Principle]]. It makes the following requirements:<br />
<br />
* ‘Be perspicuous’<br />
** Avoid obscurity of expression.<br />
** Avoid ambiguity.<br />
** Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).<br />
** Be orderly.<br />
<br />
The '''maxim of manner''' thus relates "not [...] to what is said but, rather, to HOW what is said to be said [...]" (Grice 1975: 46).<br />
<br />
An elaboration of the Gricean maxim of manner was proposed by Leech (1983: 100), who distinguishes two kinds of clarity: "One kind consists in making unambiguous use of syntax and phonology of the language in order to construct a clear text. Another type [...] consists in framing a clear message, ie a message which is perspicuous or intelligible in the sense of conveying the intended illocutionary goal to the addressee."<br />
<br />
==Examples==<br />
<br />
* A: I hear you went to the opera last night; how was the lead singer?<br />
* B: The singer produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to the score of an aria from 'Rigoletto'. (Levinson 1983: ***)<br />
<br />
B flouts the maxim of manner, as the sentence is unnecessarily prolix.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* M-Principle<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
* [http://www2.let.uu.nl/Uil-OTS/Lexicon/ Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
* Brown.edu Grice’s Conversational Maxims. 26 Jul 2009 <http://www.cog.brown.edu/courses/cg45/lecture%20slides/Gricean%20Maxims.pdf><br />
* [http://books.google.de/books?id=LSJbj_GQBcoC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=maxim+of+manner+horn&source=bl&ots=wBmVtbukZu&sig=Jg2R5iqZd03BnspEw4yxLp9YduY&hl=de&ei=LwDCSs_5LseG4Qbl_5WLCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=maxim%20of%20manner%20horn&f=false books.Google.de Horn - Maxim of Manner. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse. 29 Sept 2009]<br />
* [http://books.google.de/books?id=lW36ropcz9wC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=levinson+2000+Q,+I+M+principle&source=bl&ots=LHnUY1CQGw&sig=ldNNT5xlwPMRiaFRUIyxIh7FWTY&hl=de&ei=vwbCSq2XAZSw4QatsZSLCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=levinson%202000%20Q%2C%20I%20M%20principle&f=false books.Google.de Levinson 2000 - Q,I,M Principle. Zitat und Bedeutung. 29 Sept 2009]<br />
<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
* Atlas, J. and S. Levinson (1981) It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form, In: P. Cole ed., Radical Pragmatics, 1-61, New York: Academic Press.<br />
* Horn, Lawrence. (1984) Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature, In: D. Schiffrin ed., Meaning, Form and Use in Context (GURT '84), 11-42, Washington: Georgetown University Press.<br />
* Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), ''Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts'', 41-58. New York: Academic Press.<br />
* Leech, G. (1983/1995). ''Principle of Pragmatics''. 9th edition. London: Longman.<br />
* Levinson, S. (2000). ''Presumptive Meanings – The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature''. Cambridge: MIT Press.<br />
* Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1986) ''Relevance: Communication and Cognition'', Oxford: Blackwell.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Pragmatics]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Multilingualism&diff=10592Multilingualism2010-02-04T17:19:56Z<p>Volker gast: /* Multilingualism on the Micro-Level */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Definition=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is the situation in which a person has command of, or a community uses, two or more languages. Accordingly, one has to distinguish between multilingualism on the micro-level (individual multilingualism) and multilingualism on the macro-level (societal multilingualism).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the macro-level=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is a worldwide phenomenon and, perhaps surprisingly, monolingual persons or societies are exceptional. The misbelief that [[monolingualism]] is the rule is due to the fact that there are only few countries where more than one official language is spoken. Not even a quarter of the world’s nations recognize two official languages (e.g. India, Canada), and only six nations have three or more languages as official languages (e.g. Switzerland, South Africa). Even in those cases there might be other vernaculars and regional languages which are not officially recognized. But this is unavoidable in administrative and bureaucratic respects (Edwards 1995, 33; Edwards 2007, 448). <br />
<br />
Another problem with multilingualism is one of measurement, i.e. the assessment of the extent of multilingualism in a country and, connected with that, the assessment of the proficiency level that is required for a person to count as multilingual. The method used to account for these questions is census. But this is connected with further difficulties: The formulation of questions (intercultural differences in understanding certain concepts, e.g. ‘mother-tongue’), the change of the questions over time which makes censuses incomparable, the subjectivity on the side of the respondents when estimating their proficiency level, the simplification of data coding leaves no room for elaboration or explanation, the problem of interpreting the data (Edwards 2007, 451/452). <br />
<br />
== Reasons for multilingualism==<br />
<br />
Multilingualism arises when languages get into contact. The reason for language contact is the simple need of communication between human beings with different linguistic backgrounds. One of the occasions that could effect such a situation is population movement, i.e. a group of immigrants gets into contact with the population of the target location. In order to communicate they have to get at least some command of each other’s language. However, sometimes people do not even have to move to come into contact with another language, which would be the case with territorial expansion. Imperialist or colonial policies and associated military and economic pressures prompted peoples to adopt the language of the expansionist regime. But often the colonial influence ceases to be the main factor for the use of the foreign language, and convenience and cultural prestige become dominant reasons. A prominent example is of course the British Empire. Today, all the former British colonies have regained their independence, but many of them, e.g. the African Union, use English as the official language, or one among their official languages.<br />
<br />
Further reasons for multilingualism are trade, religion, multilingual federations and political union (Edwards 2007, 449/450). Canada, for instance, incorporates an English and a French ‘charter’ group. In addition, multilingualism occurs frequently in border areas, for example between Quebec and New England. This is most obviously related to matters of trade and everyday communication. In industrialised settings language learning is mainly rendered possible through institutional backing. Here, multilingualism is often unidirectional, i.e. the language of the politically and economically superior nation will be dominant. In rural areas and ethnically mixed regions, where languages are learned through face-to-face interaction, the use of languages is more balanced because people have equal interest in acquiring each other’s language. Anyway, there is often cultural and educational motivation that prompts people to consider second-or-third language acquisition (Matras 1009, 48). <br />
<br />
==Fluidity, language maintenance, language shift, language death==<br />
<br />
Multilingual settings are always characterized by ‘fluidity’, i.e. the language balance is changing steadily. Multilingualism increases or decreases (Crystal 2007, 362). The latter happens for instance when the next generations of a group of immigrants more and more abandon their parents’ language because their socialisation takes place in the new environment – partly or completely. However, in a time of globalisation the chances for survival for such languages are improving. Studies (Lo 2007; Osman 2006) have shown that members of the second or third generations of immigrant families have opportunities and motivation to maintain their parents’ language. Technological progress allows them to use media in their language and facilitates electronic communication (e.g. via internet) with family or community members (perhaps even in the parents’ home country). Furthermore, there might be the possibility to continue language learning at school and the arrival of new immigrants in the community might lead to fresh contact with culture and, thus, with language. An additional incentive to maintain the parents’ language is a better prospect on the labour market (Matras 50).<br />
<br />
In general, the spread of one language is often at the expense of another and the reason for a language to be more powerful than another is the strength of its community. But there are of course cases when a language can assert its position and withstand the influence of powerful neighbours. This is called [[language maintenance]]. [[Language shift]] occurs when one language cannot resist the influence of a more powerful language and its speakers assimilate to the dominant culture. This may be attended by the [[borrowing]] of vocabulary, but it may also happen that a new ‘hybrid’, i.e. a mixture of the languages, comes into existence. The worst case would be language death, which means that the language is not spoken anymore, as it happened to some Celtic languages (Crystal 2007 362). <br />
<br />
==Bridging methods==<br />
<br />
People in multilingual settings need multilingual competence. But there are occasions on which insufficient abilities require the use of certain bridging methods. One such method would be the use of a [[lingua franca]]. These are be languages which are often widely spread and which are spoken by powerful and prestigious communities, like, for instance, Latin and France in the past, and English today. Moreover, there are languages that are characterized by a limited vocabulary and a simplified syntax which facilitates their acquisition. These are [[Pidgin]]s and [[Creole]] varieties. Finally, a lingua franca may also be an [[artificial language]], such as [[Esperanto]]. <br />
<br />
The other bridging method is the translation from one language into another, which, though being practical, is always a matter of interpretation and judgement. It has to be carried out with due diligence (Edwards 2007, 455/456).<br />
<br />
==Domains of communication -- dominant, majority and minority languages==<br />
<br />
When considering multilingualism on the macro-level one has to consider so-called ‘domains’ of communication: setting, topic, goal and mode/medium of interaction. There is the assumption that one language will be preferred over another depending on the respective domain (Matras 2009, 45). For instance: A boy in South Africa uses a vernacular when talking to family members or to other people in his town, but at school he uses the official language which is common in this region. Here the choice of language depends on the setting of interaction.<br />
<br />
In stable multilingual settings there is often a ‘dominant’ language which is used preferably in a majority of domains of interaction, especially in public and institutional domains. Accordingly, a certain proficiency level in that language is required for people to be able to participate in the basic domains of social life, e.g. media use, education, formal procedures. The dominant language is often the ‘majority language’ in the state, i.e. the numerical majority of the population uses it as domestic language. However, there are also contexts in which dominant languages are not necessarily majority languages. Such cases can be found in Africa where the use of one official language is promoted in educational and institutional domains, which makes it the dominant language. But a majority of the population may speak another language in private and everyday contexts, which is absent from the institutional domain, but nevertheless remains the majority language. ‘Minority languages’ are used by a minority of the population and, consequently, play a minor role in the public domain. However, lately there has been a tendency to recognize minority languages as official languages. They were codified (i.e. standardized and given established norms which are stated in grammar books and dictionaries) and included in public and institutional domains. Often these official minority languages are regional and, thus, a country might have one or two national languages and several regional languages (Matras 2009, 45/46). <br />
<br />
However, there is a general tendency in favour of those languages which enjoy institutional backing. They become more and more dominant while others are retreating. People must have certain skills in that dominant language in order to participate in public life. Moreover, the dominant language supersedes other languages by infiltrating domains that were formerly managed by means of another language. But it may also be the case that people extend their activity repertoires and, consequently, their domains of communication which might prompt them to make use of a more dominant language. And this is why so many languages are retreating: They were crowded out of their former domains. Matras puts it as follows: “The stability of multilingualism depends on the stability of activity patterns.” (Matras 1009, 53) Here is an example from northern Germany: In the course of industrialization people had to leave their agricultural working environments and, thus, their villages. In the towns they were confronted with Standard German which led to an increasing use of it at home. Standard German became the language of schooling to allow for national job application. Low German was more and more retreating from its former domains (Matras 2009, 51/52).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the micro-level=<br />
<br />
In contrast to societal multilingualism, individual multilingualism deals with individuals that have command of two or more languages. There are two general possibilities: A child may acquire two or more languages by birth or it may learn two or more languages later on. Some parents fear that learning more than one language at such a young age would overstrain their children and negatively affect their academic success. However, this is not the case. Sometimes it can happen that the child is a little slower in the acquisition of one language or in both, but it will catch up sooner or later. In any case, most parents will realize that it benefits their children to have command of more than one language. In addition to practical and professional reasons, multilingual parents want their children to maintain their language for reasons of identity (Auer/Wei 2007, 4).<br />
<br />
A child that acquires more than one language by birth learns to select certain structures, words and later on phrases and sentences, from its linguistic repertoire depending on the addressee. For instance, it knows that it has to address the Italian-speaking father differently than the German-speaking mother. But still it does not know that it is using two different languages. The child has a set of interaction cues and a set of words. With growing social interaction it establishes certain selection rules and demarcation rules that determine the set of words for a certain interaction or activity. It has to choose from two or more components in its linguistic repertoire and will learn later on that these components are languages (Matras 2009, 41). <br />
<br />
==The Dual Language Theory==<br />
<br />
A theoretical basis for what happens when a child learns two or more languages might be the [[Dual Language Theory]] which was proposed by Kecskes (1998) and Kecskes and Papp (2000). This theory assumes that “the language learner is [...] in the process of changing the existing conceptual and linguistic system by adding new information that will result in a qualitative change in the conceptual system and the emergence of a new linguistic system rooted in one and the same conceptual system” (Kecskes 1998, 373). This process is split up into two periods: Language transfer and conceptual change. Language transfer is a unidirectional (L1->L2) process and there is a strong dominance of the first language in the conceptual system. The second language is added as another register and the language channels interact. This is considered a negative phenomenon since there occur many grammatical/lexical errors in the second language. The second period is characterized by a change in the linguistic system, in the conceptual system and by bidirectional influence of the languages (L1<-->L2). The result is a conceptual blending of knowledge that comes through either channel which has positive effects on language behaviour and discourse organization (Kecskés 1998, 373/374).<br />
<br />
==Interaction cues and code-switching==<br />
<br />
There are a number of cues which determine the choice of language. This has been mentioned to be the addressee. In this case, interaction settings play an important role, i.e. the language at school might be different from that used in the neighbourhood, and the multilingual speaker has to choose accordingly. Within one interaction setting the language may vary depending on different interaction contexts, especially within the household. Family members may switch to another language when friends are visiting or when they answer the phone (mode/medium of interaction). Another cue that might influence language choice is the topic of conversation. For instance, when talking about school or doing homework, parents might address their child in the language that is spoken at school. But when reprimanding their child, parents might switch to their mother tongue. Be it multilingualism on the macro-level or on the micro-level, there are always languages that are dominant or preferred in specific domains. Connected with that, multilingual speakers build up certain language hierarchies depending on their dominant language and of course on their linguistic skills. A multilingual speaker might not be equally proficient in all his languages. One could assume that the speaker is more proficient in the language he or she uses most frequently, i.e. he can read, write and speak fluently and faultlessly and proves to be competent when dealing with register and style. He or she might be able to speak another language, but is perhaps unable to write it (Matras 2009, 42/43).<br />
<br />
Language demarcation rules enable the speaker to switch between languages according to context. However, the switching does not only occur on context-level, it also occurs on sentence-level. This phenomenon is called [[code-switching]]. It has a bad reputation because it is considered a “debased form of speaking”, “a sign of laziness”, and “a lack of competence”, but, in fact, it is highly functional. It is a conversational strategy for multilingual speakers as is gesture or prosody for monolingual speakers. They simply lack that additional strategy which is very useful for the construction of context, identity and relationships (Auer/Wei 2007, 8).<br />
<br />
==Staying multilingual==<br />
<br />
Staying multilingual appears to be more problematic than becoming multilingual. This is connected with school and peer groups. Schools are usually dominated by one language which is not necessarily the child’s language. Under favourable conditions the child’s language is still offered at school, but, although the situation has improved in the course of globalization, schools can hardly incorporate more than a handful of languages. And then, they mostly offer those languages which have many speakers, i.e. world languages like English, Spanish, French, perhaps Chinese. Schools still work with national ideologies and build up linguistic hierarchies, favouring more prestigious and powerful languages (Auer/Wei 2007, 5/6). However, there are schools which encourage multilingualism by giving lessons like geography or history in languages other than the official language of the respective region and there are even bilingual nursery schools. Nowadays, one has dismal prospects on the labour market if one is not able to speak at least two languages. Parents are getting more and more conscious about the necessity for their children to speak more than one language.<br />
<br />
=Literature=<br />
<br />
* Auer, Peter/Wei, Li (2007). “Introduction.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-8. <br />
* Crystal, David (2007). “Multilingualism.” In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. 362-365. <br />
* Edwards, John (1995). Multilingualism. London, New York et al.: Penguin Books.<br />
* Edwards, John (2007). “Societal Multilingualism. Reality, Recognition and Response.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li <br />
* Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 447-467.<br />
* Kecskés, I (2006). “Multilingualism. Pragmatic Aspects.” In: Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Ed. by Keith Brown. 2nd ed. Vol. 8. Oxford et al.: Elsevier Ltd. 371-375. <br />
* Matras, Yaron (2009). Language Contact. Cambridge, New York et al: Cambridge University Press.<br />
* Matthews, P. H. (1997). “Multilingual.” In: Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford, New York et al.: Oxford University Press. 235.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Multilingualism&diff=10591Multilingualism2010-02-04T17:19:12Z<p>Volker gast: /* The Dual Language Theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Definition=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is the situation in which a person has command of, or a community uses, two or more languages. Accordingly, one has to distinguish between multilingualism on the micro-level (individual multilingualism) and multilingualism on the macro-level (societal multilingualism).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the macro-level=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is a worldwide phenomenon and, perhaps surprisingly, monolingual persons or societies are exceptional. The misbelief that [[monolingualism]] is the rule is due to the fact that there are only few countries where more than one official language is spoken. Not even a quarter of the world’s nations recognize two official languages (e.g. India, Canada), and only six nations have three or more languages as official languages (e.g. Switzerland, South Africa). Even in those cases there might be other vernaculars and regional languages which are not officially recognized. But this is unavoidable in administrative and bureaucratic respects (Edwards 1995, 33; Edwards 2007, 448). <br />
<br />
Another problem with multilingualism is one of measurement, i.e. the assessment of the extent of multilingualism in a country and, connected with that, the assessment of the proficiency level that is required for a person to count as multilingual. The method used to account for these questions is census. But this is connected with further difficulties: The formulation of questions (intercultural differences in understanding certain concepts, e.g. ‘mother-tongue’), the change of the questions over time which makes censuses incomparable, the subjectivity on the side of the respondents when estimating their proficiency level, the simplification of data coding leaves no room for elaboration or explanation, the problem of interpreting the data (Edwards 2007, 451/452). <br />
<br />
== Reasons for multilingualism==<br />
<br />
Multilingualism arises when languages get into contact. The reason for language contact is the simple need of communication between human beings with different linguistic backgrounds. One of the occasions that could effect such a situation is population movement, i.e. a group of immigrants gets into contact with the population of the target location. In order to communicate they have to get at least some command of each other’s language. However, sometimes people do not even have to move to come into contact with another language, which would be the case with territorial expansion. Imperialist or colonial policies and associated military and economic pressures prompted peoples to adopt the language of the expansionist regime. But often the colonial influence ceases to be the main factor for the use of the foreign language, and convenience and cultural prestige become dominant reasons. A prominent example is of course the British Empire. Today, all the former British colonies have regained their independence, but many of them, e.g. the African Union, use English as the official language, or one among their official languages.<br />
<br />
Further reasons for multilingualism are trade, religion, multilingual federations and political union (Edwards 2007, 449/450). Canada, for instance, incorporates an English and a French ‘charter’ group. In addition, multilingualism occurs frequently in border areas, for example between Quebec and New England. This is most obviously related to matters of trade and everyday communication. In industrialised settings language learning is mainly rendered possible through institutional backing. Here, multilingualism is often unidirectional, i.e. the language of the politically and economically superior nation will be dominant. In rural areas and ethnically mixed regions, where languages are learned through face-to-face interaction, the use of languages is more balanced because people have equal interest in acquiring each other’s language. Anyway, there is often cultural and educational motivation that prompts people to consider second-or-third language acquisition (Matras 1009, 48). <br />
<br />
==Fluidity, language maintenance, language shift, language death==<br />
<br />
Multilingual settings are always characterized by ‘fluidity’, i.e. the language balance is changing steadily. Multilingualism increases or decreases (Crystal 2007, 362). The latter happens for instance when the next generations of a group of immigrants more and more abandon their parents’ language because their socialisation takes place in the new environment – partly or completely. However, in a time of globalisation the chances for survival for such languages are improving. Studies (Lo 2007; Osman 2006) have shown that members of the second or third generations of immigrant families have opportunities and motivation to maintain their parents’ language. Technological progress allows them to use media in their language and facilitates electronic communication (e.g. via internet) with family or community members (perhaps even in the parents’ home country). Furthermore, there might be the possibility to continue language learning at school and the arrival of new immigrants in the community might lead to fresh contact with culture and, thus, with language. An additional incentive to maintain the parents’ language is a better prospect on the labour market (Matras 50).<br />
<br />
In general, the spread of one language is often at the expense of another and the reason for a language to be more powerful than another is the strength of its community. But there are of course cases when a language can assert its position and withstand the influence of powerful neighbours. This is called [[language maintenance]]. [[Language shift]] occurs when one language cannot resist the influence of a more powerful language and its speakers assimilate to the dominant culture. This may be attended by the [[borrowing]] of vocabulary, but it may also happen that a new ‘hybrid’, i.e. a mixture of the languages, comes into existence. The worst case would be language death, which means that the language is not spoken anymore, as it happened to some Celtic languages (Crystal 2007 362). <br />
<br />
==Bridging methods==<br />
<br />
People in multilingual settings need multilingual competence. But there are occasions on which insufficient abilities require the use of certain bridging methods. One such method would be the use of a [[lingua franca]]. These are be languages which are often widely spread and which are spoken by powerful and prestigious communities, like, for instance, Latin and France in the past, and English today. Moreover, there are languages that are characterized by a limited vocabulary and a simplified syntax which facilitates their acquisition. These are [[Pidgin]]s and [[Creole]] varieties. Finally, a lingua franca may also be an [[artificial language]], such as [[Esperanto]]. <br />
<br />
The other bridging method is the translation from one language into another, which, though being practical, is always a matter of interpretation and judgement. It has to be carried out with due diligence (Edwards 2007, 455/456).<br />
<br />
==Domains of communication -- dominant, majority and minority languages==<br />
<br />
When considering multilingualism on the macro-level one has to consider so-called ‘domains’ of communication: setting, topic, goal and mode/medium of interaction. There is the assumption that one language will be preferred over another depending on the respective domain (Matras 2009, 45). For instance: A boy in South Africa uses a vernacular when talking to family members or to other people in his town, but at school he uses the official language which is common in this region. Here the choice of language depends on the setting of interaction.<br />
<br />
In stable multilingual settings there is often a ‘dominant’ language which is used preferably in a majority of domains of interaction, especially in public and institutional domains. Accordingly, a certain proficiency level in that language is required for people to be able to participate in the basic domains of social life, e.g. media use, education, formal procedures. The dominant language is often the ‘majority language’ in the state, i.e. the numerical majority of the population uses it as domestic language. However, there are also contexts in which dominant languages are not necessarily majority languages. Such cases can be found in Africa where the use of one official language is promoted in educational and institutional domains, which makes it the dominant language. But a majority of the population may speak another language in private and everyday contexts, which is absent from the institutional domain, but nevertheless remains the majority language. ‘Minority languages’ are used by a minority of the population and, consequently, play a minor role in the public domain. However, lately there has been a tendency to recognize minority languages as official languages. They were codified (i.e. standardized and given established norms which are stated in grammar books and dictionaries) and included in public and institutional domains. Often these official minority languages are regional and, thus, a country might have one or two national languages and several regional languages (Matras 2009, 45/46). <br />
<br />
However, there is a general tendency in favour of those languages which enjoy institutional backing. They become more and more dominant while others are retreating. People must have certain skills in that dominant language in order to participate in public life. Moreover, the dominant language supersedes other languages by infiltrating domains that were formerly managed by means of another language. But it may also be the case that people extend their activity repertoires and, consequently, their domains of communication which might prompt them to make use of a more dominant language. And this is why so many languages are retreating: They were crowded out of their former domains. Matras puts it as follows: “The stability of multilingualism depends on the stability of activity patterns.” (Matras 1009, 53) Here is an example from northern Germany: In the course of industrialization people had to leave their agricultural working environments and, thus, their villages. In the towns they were confronted with Standard German which led to an increasing use of it at home. Standard German became the language of schooling to allow for national job application. Low German was more and more retreating from its former domains (Matras 2009, 51/52).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the Micro-Level=<br />
<br />
In contrast to societal multilingualism, individual multilingualism deals with individuals that have command of two or more languages. There are two general possibilities: A child may acquire two or more languages by birth or it may learn two or more languages later on. Some parents fear that learning more than one language at such a young age would overstrain their children and negatively affect their academic success. However, this is not the case. Sometimes it can happen that the child is a little slower in the acquisition of one language or in both, but it will catch up sooner or later. In any case, most parents will realize that it benefits their children to have command of more than one language. In addition to practical and professional reasons, multilingual parents want their children to maintain their language for reasons of identity (Auer/Wei 2007, 4).<br />
<br />
A child that acquires more than one language by birth learns to select certain structures, words and later on phrases and sentences, from its linguistic repertoire depending on the addressee. For instance, it knows that it has to address the Italian-speaking father differently than the German-speaking mother. But still it does not know that it is using two different languages. The child has a set of interaction cues and a set of words. With growing social interaction it establishes certain selection rules and demarcation rules that determine the set of words for a certain interaction or activity. It has to choose from two or more components in its linguistic repertoire and will learn later on that these components are languages (Matras 2009, 41). <br />
<br />
==The Dual Language Theory==<br />
<br />
A theoretical basis for what happens when a child learns two or more languages might be the [[Dual Language Theory]] which was proposed by Kecskes (1998) and Kecskes and Papp (2000). This theory assumes that “the language learner is [...] in the process of changing the existing conceptual and linguistic system by adding new information that will result in a qualitative change in the conceptual system and the emergence of a new linguistic system rooted in one and the same conceptual system” (Kecskes 1998, 373). This process is split up into two periods: Language transfer and conceptual change. Language transfer is a unidirectional (L1->L2) process and there is a strong dominance of the first language in the conceptual system. The second language is added as another register and the language channels interact. This is considered a negative phenomenon since there occur many grammatical/lexical errors in the second language. The second period is characterized by a change in the linguistic system, in the conceptual system and by bidirectional influence of the languages (L1<-->L2). The result is a conceptual blending of knowledge that comes through either channel which has positive effects on language behaviour and discourse organization (Kecskés 1998, 373/374).<br />
<br />
==Interaction Cues and Code-Switching==<br />
<br />
There are a number of cues which determine the choice of language. This has been mentioned to be the addressee. In this case, interaction settings play an important role, i.e. the language at school might be different from that used in the neighbourhood, and the multilingual speaker has to choose accordingly. Within one interaction setting the language may vary depending on different interaction contexts, especially within the household. Family members may switch to another language when friends are visiting or when they answer the phone (mode/medium of interaction). Another cue that might influence language choice is the topic of conversation. For instance, when talking about school or doing homework, parents might address their child in the language that is spoken at school. But when reprimanding their child, parents might switch to their mother tongue. Be it multilingualism on the macro-level or on the micro-level, there are always languages that are dominant or preferred in specific domains. Connected with that, multilingual speakers build up certain language hierarchies depending on their dominant language and of course on their linguistic skills. A multilingual speaker might not be equally proficient in all his languages. One could assume that the speaker is more proficient in the language he or she uses most frequently, i.e. he can read, write and speak fluently and faultlessly and proves to be competent when dealing with register and style. He or she might be able to speak another language, but is perhaps unable to write it (Matras 2009, 42/43).<br />
<br />
Language demarcation rules enable the speaker to switch between languages according to context. However, the switching does not only occur on context-level, it also occurs on sentence-level. This phenomenon is called [[code-switching]]. It has a bad reputation because it is considered a “debased form of speaking”, “a sign of laziness”, and “a lack of competence”, but, in fact, it is highly functional. It is a conversational strategy for multilingual speakers as is gesture or prosody for monolingual speakers. They simply lack that additional strategy which is very useful for the construction of context, identity and relationships (Auer/Wei 2007, 8).<br />
<br />
== Staying Multilingual==<br />
<br />
Staying multilingual appears to be more problematic than becoming multilingual. This is connected with school and peer groups. Schools are usually dominated by one language which is not necessarily the child’s language. Under favourable conditions the child’s language is still offered at school, but, although the situation has improved in the course of globalization, schools can hardly incorporate more than a handful of languages. And then, they mostly offer those languages which have many speakers, i.e. world languages like English, Spanish, French, perhaps Chinese. Schools still work with national ideologies and build up linguistic hierarchies, favouring more prestigious and powerful languages (Auer/Wei 2007, 5/6). However, there are schools which encourage multilingualism by giving lessons like geography or history in languages other than the official language of the respective region and there are even bilingual nursery schools. Nowadays, one has dismal prospects on the labour market if one is not able to speak at least two languages. Parents are getting more and more conscious about the necessity for their children to speak more than one language.<br />
<br />
=Literature=<br />
<br />
* Auer, Peter/Wei, Li (2007). “Introduction.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-8. <br />
* Crystal, David (2007). “Multilingualism.” In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. 362-365. <br />
* Edwards, John (1995). Multilingualism. London, New York et al.: Penguin Books.<br />
* Edwards, John (2007). “Societal Multilingualism. Reality, Recognition and Response.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li <br />
* Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 447-467.<br />
* Kecskés, I (2006). “Multilingualism. Pragmatic Aspects.” In: Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Ed. by Keith Brown. 2nd ed. Vol. 8. Oxford et al.: Elsevier Ltd. 371-375. <br />
* Matras, Yaron (2009). Language Contact. Cambridge, New York et al: Cambridge University Press.<br />
* Matthews, P. H. (1997). “Multilingual.” In: Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford, New York et al.: Oxford University Press. 235.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Multilingualism&diff=10590Multilingualism2010-02-04T17:18:46Z<p>Volker gast: /* Domains of Communication; Dominant, Majority and Minority Languages */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Definition=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is the situation in which a person has command of, or a community uses, two or more languages. Accordingly, one has to distinguish between multilingualism on the micro-level (individual multilingualism) and multilingualism on the macro-level (societal multilingualism).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the macro-level=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is a worldwide phenomenon and, perhaps surprisingly, monolingual persons or societies are exceptional. The misbelief that [[monolingualism]] is the rule is due to the fact that there are only few countries where more than one official language is spoken. Not even a quarter of the world’s nations recognize two official languages (e.g. India, Canada), and only six nations have three or more languages as official languages (e.g. Switzerland, South Africa). Even in those cases there might be other vernaculars and regional languages which are not officially recognized. But this is unavoidable in administrative and bureaucratic respects (Edwards 1995, 33; Edwards 2007, 448). <br />
<br />
Another problem with multilingualism is one of measurement, i.e. the assessment of the extent of multilingualism in a country and, connected with that, the assessment of the proficiency level that is required for a person to count as multilingual. The method used to account for these questions is census. But this is connected with further difficulties: The formulation of questions (intercultural differences in understanding certain concepts, e.g. ‘mother-tongue’), the change of the questions over time which makes censuses incomparable, the subjectivity on the side of the respondents when estimating their proficiency level, the simplification of data coding leaves no room for elaboration or explanation, the problem of interpreting the data (Edwards 2007, 451/452). <br />
<br />
== Reasons for multilingualism==<br />
<br />
Multilingualism arises when languages get into contact. The reason for language contact is the simple need of communication between human beings with different linguistic backgrounds. One of the occasions that could effect such a situation is population movement, i.e. a group of immigrants gets into contact with the population of the target location. In order to communicate they have to get at least some command of each other’s language. However, sometimes people do not even have to move to come into contact with another language, which would be the case with territorial expansion. Imperialist or colonial policies and associated military and economic pressures prompted peoples to adopt the language of the expansionist regime. But often the colonial influence ceases to be the main factor for the use of the foreign language, and convenience and cultural prestige become dominant reasons. A prominent example is of course the British Empire. Today, all the former British colonies have regained their independence, but many of them, e.g. the African Union, use English as the official language, or one among their official languages.<br />
<br />
Further reasons for multilingualism are trade, religion, multilingual federations and political union (Edwards 2007, 449/450). Canada, for instance, incorporates an English and a French ‘charter’ group. In addition, multilingualism occurs frequently in border areas, for example between Quebec and New England. This is most obviously related to matters of trade and everyday communication. In industrialised settings language learning is mainly rendered possible through institutional backing. Here, multilingualism is often unidirectional, i.e. the language of the politically and economically superior nation will be dominant. In rural areas and ethnically mixed regions, where languages are learned through face-to-face interaction, the use of languages is more balanced because people have equal interest in acquiring each other’s language. Anyway, there is often cultural and educational motivation that prompts people to consider second-or-third language acquisition (Matras 1009, 48). <br />
<br />
==Fluidity, language maintenance, language shift, language death==<br />
<br />
Multilingual settings are always characterized by ‘fluidity’, i.e. the language balance is changing steadily. Multilingualism increases or decreases (Crystal 2007, 362). The latter happens for instance when the next generations of a group of immigrants more and more abandon their parents’ language because their socialisation takes place in the new environment – partly or completely. However, in a time of globalisation the chances for survival for such languages are improving. Studies (Lo 2007; Osman 2006) have shown that members of the second or third generations of immigrant families have opportunities and motivation to maintain their parents’ language. Technological progress allows them to use media in their language and facilitates electronic communication (e.g. via internet) with family or community members (perhaps even in the parents’ home country). Furthermore, there might be the possibility to continue language learning at school and the arrival of new immigrants in the community might lead to fresh contact with culture and, thus, with language. An additional incentive to maintain the parents’ language is a better prospect on the labour market (Matras 50).<br />
<br />
In general, the spread of one language is often at the expense of another and the reason for a language to be more powerful than another is the strength of its community. But there are of course cases when a language can assert its position and withstand the influence of powerful neighbours. This is called [[language maintenance]]. [[Language shift]] occurs when one language cannot resist the influence of a more powerful language and its speakers assimilate to the dominant culture. This may be attended by the [[borrowing]] of vocabulary, but it may also happen that a new ‘hybrid’, i.e. a mixture of the languages, comes into existence. The worst case would be language death, which means that the language is not spoken anymore, as it happened to some Celtic languages (Crystal 2007 362). <br />
<br />
==Bridging methods==<br />
<br />
People in multilingual settings need multilingual competence. But there are occasions on which insufficient abilities require the use of certain bridging methods. One such method would be the use of a [[lingua franca]]. These are be languages which are often widely spread and which are spoken by powerful and prestigious communities, like, for instance, Latin and France in the past, and English today. Moreover, there are languages that are characterized by a limited vocabulary and a simplified syntax which facilitates their acquisition. These are [[Pidgin]]s and [[Creole]] varieties. Finally, a lingua franca may also be an [[artificial language]], such as [[Esperanto]]. <br />
<br />
The other bridging method is the translation from one language into another, which, though being practical, is always a matter of interpretation and judgement. It has to be carried out with due diligence (Edwards 2007, 455/456).<br />
<br />
==Domains of communication -- dominant, majority and minority languages==<br />
<br />
When considering multilingualism on the macro-level one has to consider so-called ‘domains’ of communication: setting, topic, goal and mode/medium of interaction. There is the assumption that one language will be preferred over another depending on the respective domain (Matras 2009, 45). For instance: A boy in South Africa uses a vernacular when talking to family members or to other people in his town, but at school he uses the official language which is common in this region. Here the choice of language depends on the setting of interaction.<br />
<br />
In stable multilingual settings there is often a ‘dominant’ language which is used preferably in a majority of domains of interaction, especially in public and institutional domains. Accordingly, a certain proficiency level in that language is required for people to be able to participate in the basic domains of social life, e.g. media use, education, formal procedures. The dominant language is often the ‘majority language’ in the state, i.e. the numerical majority of the population uses it as domestic language. However, there are also contexts in which dominant languages are not necessarily majority languages. Such cases can be found in Africa where the use of one official language is promoted in educational and institutional domains, which makes it the dominant language. But a majority of the population may speak another language in private and everyday contexts, which is absent from the institutional domain, but nevertheless remains the majority language. ‘Minority languages’ are used by a minority of the population and, consequently, play a minor role in the public domain. However, lately there has been a tendency to recognize minority languages as official languages. They were codified (i.e. standardized and given established norms which are stated in grammar books and dictionaries) and included in public and institutional domains. Often these official minority languages are regional and, thus, a country might have one or two national languages and several regional languages (Matras 2009, 45/46). <br />
<br />
However, there is a general tendency in favour of those languages which enjoy institutional backing. They become more and more dominant while others are retreating. People must have certain skills in that dominant language in order to participate in public life. Moreover, the dominant language supersedes other languages by infiltrating domains that were formerly managed by means of another language. But it may also be the case that people extend their activity repertoires and, consequently, their domains of communication which might prompt them to make use of a more dominant language. And this is why so many languages are retreating: They were crowded out of their former domains. Matras puts it as follows: “The stability of multilingualism depends on the stability of activity patterns.” (Matras 1009, 53) Here is an example from northern Germany: In the course of industrialization people had to leave their agricultural working environments and, thus, their villages. In the towns they were confronted with Standard German which led to an increasing use of it at home. Standard German became the language of schooling to allow for national job application. Low German was more and more retreating from its former domains (Matras 2009, 51/52).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the Micro-Level=<br />
<br />
In contrast to societal multilingualism, individual multilingualism deals with individuals that have command of two or more languages. There are two general possibilities: A child may acquire two or more languages by birth or it may learn two or more languages later on. Some parents fear that learning more than one language at such a young age would overstrain their children and negatively affect their academic success. However, this is not the case. Sometimes it can happen that the child is a little slower in the acquisition of one language or in both, but it will catch up sooner or later. In any case, most parents will realize that it benefits their children to have command of more than one language. In addition to practical and professional reasons, multilingual parents want their children to maintain their language for reasons of identity (Auer/Wei 2007, 4).<br />
<br />
A child that acquires more than one language by birth learns to select certain structures, words and later on phrases and sentences, from its linguistic repertoire depending on the addressee. For instance, it knows that it has to address the Italian-speaking father differently than the German-speaking mother. But still it does not know that it is using two different languages. The child has a set of interaction cues and a set of words. With growing social interaction it establishes certain selection rules and demarcation rules that determine the set of words for a certain interaction or activity. It has to choose from two or more components in its linguistic repertoire and will learn later on that these components are languages (Matras 2009, 41). <br />
<br />
==The Dual Language Theory==<br />
<br />
A theoretical basis for what happens when a child learns two or more languages might be the [[Dual Language Theory]] which was proposed by Kecskes (1998) and Kecskes and Papp (2000). This theory assumes that “the language learner is [...] in the process of changing the existing conceptual and linguistic system by adding new information that will result in a qualitative change in the conceptual system and the emergence of a new linguistic system rooted in one and the same conceptual system” (Kecskes 1998, 373). This process is split up into two periods: Language transfer and conceptual change. Language transfer is a unidirectional (L1L2) process and there is a strong dominance of the first language in the conceptual system. The second language is added as another register and the language channels interact. This is considered a negative phenomenon since there occur many grammatical/lexical errors in the second language. The second period is characterized by a change in the linguistic system, in the conceptual system and by bidirectional influence of the languages (L1L2). The result is a conceptual blending of knowledge that comes through either channel which has positive effects on language behaviour and discourse organization (Kecskés 1998, 373/374).<br />
<br />
==Interaction Cues and Code-Switching==<br />
<br />
There are a number of cues which determine the choice of language. This has been mentioned to be the addressee. In this case, interaction settings play an important role, i.e. the language at school might be different from that used in the neighbourhood, and the multilingual speaker has to choose accordingly. Within one interaction setting the language may vary depending on different interaction contexts, especially within the household. Family members may switch to another language when friends are visiting or when they answer the phone (mode/medium of interaction). Another cue that might influence language choice is the topic of conversation. For instance, when talking about school or doing homework, parents might address their child in the language that is spoken at school. But when reprimanding their child, parents might switch to their mother tongue. Be it multilingualism on the macro-level or on the micro-level, there are always languages that are dominant or preferred in specific domains. Connected with that, multilingual speakers build up certain language hierarchies depending on their dominant language and of course on their linguistic skills. A multilingual speaker might not be equally proficient in all his languages. One could assume that the speaker is more proficient in the language he or she uses most frequently, i.e. he can read, write and speak fluently and faultlessly and proves to be competent when dealing with register and style. He or she might be able to speak another language, but is perhaps unable to write it (Matras 2009, 42/43).<br />
<br />
Language demarcation rules enable the speaker to switch between languages according to context. However, the switching does not only occur on context-level, it also occurs on sentence-level. This phenomenon is called [[code-switching]]. It has a bad reputation because it is considered a “debased form of speaking”, “a sign of laziness”, and “a lack of competence”, but, in fact, it is highly functional. It is a conversational strategy for multilingual speakers as is gesture or prosody for monolingual speakers. They simply lack that additional strategy which is very useful for the construction of context, identity and relationships (Auer/Wei 2007, 8).<br />
<br />
== Staying Multilingual==<br />
<br />
Staying multilingual appears to be more problematic than becoming multilingual. This is connected with school and peer groups. Schools are usually dominated by one language which is not necessarily the child’s language. Under favourable conditions the child’s language is still offered at school, but, although the situation has improved in the course of globalization, schools can hardly incorporate more than a handful of languages. And then, they mostly offer those languages which have many speakers, i.e. world languages like English, Spanish, French, perhaps Chinese. Schools still work with national ideologies and build up linguistic hierarchies, favouring more prestigious and powerful languages (Auer/Wei 2007, 5/6). However, there are schools which encourage multilingualism by giving lessons like geography or history in languages other than the official language of the respective region and there are even bilingual nursery schools. Nowadays, one has dismal prospects on the labour market if one is not able to speak at least two languages. Parents are getting more and more conscious about the necessity for their children to speak more than one language.<br />
<br />
=Literature=<br />
<br />
* Auer, Peter/Wei, Li (2007). “Introduction.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-8. <br />
* Crystal, David (2007). “Multilingualism.” In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. 362-365. <br />
* Edwards, John (1995). Multilingualism. London, New York et al.: Penguin Books.<br />
* Edwards, John (2007). “Societal Multilingualism. Reality, Recognition and Response.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li <br />
* Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 447-467.<br />
* Kecskés, I (2006). “Multilingualism. Pragmatic Aspects.” In: Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Ed. by Keith Brown. 2nd ed. Vol. 8. Oxford et al.: Elsevier Ltd. 371-375. <br />
* Matras, Yaron (2009). Language Contact. Cambridge, New York et al: Cambridge University Press.<br />
* Matthews, P. H. (1997). “Multilingual.” In: Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford, New York et al.: Oxford University Press. 235.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Multilingualism&diff=10589Multilingualism2010-02-04T17:18:19Z<p>Volker gast: /* Multilingualism on the Macro-Level */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Definition=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is the situation in which a person has command of, or a community uses, two or more languages. Accordingly, one has to distinguish between multilingualism on the micro-level (individual multilingualism) and multilingualism on the macro-level (societal multilingualism).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the macro-level=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is a worldwide phenomenon and, perhaps surprisingly, monolingual persons or societies are exceptional. The misbelief that [[monolingualism]] is the rule is due to the fact that there are only few countries where more than one official language is spoken. Not even a quarter of the world’s nations recognize two official languages (e.g. India, Canada), and only six nations have three or more languages as official languages (e.g. Switzerland, South Africa). Even in those cases there might be other vernaculars and regional languages which are not officially recognized. But this is unavoidable in administrative and bureaucratic respects (Edwards 1995, 33; Edwards 2007, 448). <br />
<br />
Another problem with multilingualism is one of measurement, i.e. the assessment of the extent of multilingualism in a country and, connected with that, the assessment of the proficiency level that is required for a person to count as multilingual. The method used to account for these questions is census. But this is connected with further difficulties: The formulation of questions (intercultural differences in understanding certain concepts, e.g. ‘mother-tongue’), the change of the questions over time which makes censuses incomparable, the subjectivity on the side of the respondents when estimating their proficiency level, the simplification of data coding leaves no room for elaboration or explanation, the problem of interpreting the data (Edwards 2007, 451/452). <br />
<br />
== Reasons for multilingualism==<br />
<br />
Multilingualism arises when languages get into contact. The reason for language contact is the simple need of communication between human beings with different linguistic backgrounds. One of the occasions that could effect such a situation is population movement, i.e. a group of immigrants gets into contact with the population of the target location. In order to communicate they have to get at least some command of each other’s language. However, sometimes people do not even have to move to come into contact with another language, which would be the case with territorial expansion. Imperialist or colonial policies and associated military and economic pressures prompted peoples to adopt the language of the expansionist regime. But often the colonial influence ceases to be the main factor for the use of the foreign language, and convenience and cultural prestige become dominant reasons. A prominent example is of course the British Empire. Today, all the former British colonies have regained their independence, but many of them, e.g. the African Union, use English as the official language, or one among their official languages.<br />
<br />
Further reasons for multilingualism are trade, religion, multilingual federations and political union (Edwards 2007, 449/450). Canada, for instance, incorporates an English and a French ‘charter’ group. In addition, multilingualism occurs frequently in border areas, for example between Quebec and New England. This is most obviously related to matters of trade and everyday communication. In industrialised settings language learning is mainly rendered possible through institutional backing. Here, multilingualism is often unidirectional, i.e. the language of the politically and economically superior nation will be dominant. In rural areas and ethnically mixed regions, where languages are learned through face-to-face interaction, the use of languages is more balanced because people have equal interest in acquiring each other’s language. Anyway, there is often cultural and educational motivation that prompts people to consider second-or-third language acquisition (Matras 1009, 48). <br />
<br />
==Fluidity, language maintenance, language shift, language death==<br />
<br />
Multilingual settings are always characterized by ‘fluidity’, i.e. the language balance is changing steadily. Multilingualism increases or decreases (Crystal 2007, 362). The latter happens for instance when the next generations of a group of immigrants more and more abandon their parents’ language because their socialisation takes place in the new environment – partly or completely. However, in a time of globalisation the chances for survival for such languages are improving. Studies (Lo 2007; Osman 2006) have shown that members of the second or third generations of immigrant families have opportunities and motivation to maintain their parents’ language. Technological progress allows them to use media in their language and facilitates electronic communication (e.g. via internet) with family or community members (perhaps even in the parents’ home country). Furthermore, there might be the possibility to continue language learning at school and the arrival of new immigrants in the community might lead to fresh contact with culture and, thus, with language. An additional incentive to maintain the parents’ language is a better prospect on the labour market (Matras 50).<br />
<br />
In general, the spread of one language is often at the expense of another and the reason for a language to be more powerful than another is the strength of its community. But there are of course cases when a language can assert its position and withstand the influence of powerful neighbours. This is called [[language maintenance]]. [[Language shift]] occurs when one language cannot resist the influence of a more powerful language and its speakers assimilate to the dominant culture. This may be attended by the [[borrowing]] of vocabulary, but it may also happen that a new ‘hybrid’, i.e. a mixture of the languages, comes into existence. The worst case would be language death, which means that the language is not spoken anymore, as it happened to some Celtic languages (Crystal 2007 362). <br />
<br />
==Bridging methods==<br />
<br />
People in multilingual settings need multilingual competence. But there are occasions on which insufficient abilities require the use of certain bridging methods. One such method would be the use of a [[lingua franca]]. These are be languages which are often widely spread and which are spoken by powerful and prestigious communities, like, for instance, Latin and France in the past, and English today. Moreover, there are languages that are characterized by a limited vocabulary and a simplified syntax which facilitates their acquisition. These are [[Pidgin]]s and [[Creole]] varieties. Finally, a lingua franca may also be an [[artificial language]], such as [[Esperanto]]. <br />
<br />
The other bridging method is the translation from one language into another, which, though being practical, is always a matter of interpretation and judgement. It has to be carried out with due diligence (Edwards 2007, 455/456).<br />
<br />
==Domains of Communication; Dominant, Majority and Minority Languages==<br />
<br />
When considering multilingualism on the macro-level one has to consider so-called ‘domains’ of communication: setting, topic, goal and mode/medium of interaction. There is the assumption that one language will be preferred over another depending on the respective domain (Matras 2009, 45). For instance: A boy in South Africa uses a vernacular when talking to family members or to other people in his town, but at school he uses the official language which is common in this region. Here the choice of language depends on the setting of interaction.<br />
<br />
In stable multilingual settings there is often a ‘dominant’ language which is used preferably in a majority of domains of interaction, especially in public and institutional domains. Accordingly, a certain proficiency level in that language is required for people to be able to participate in the basic domains of social life, e.g. media use, education, formal procedures. The dominant language is often the ‘majority language’ in the state, i.e. the numerical majority of the population uses it as domestic language. However, there are also contexts in which dominant languages are not necessarily majority languages. Such cases can be found in Africa where the use of one official language is promoted in educational and institutional domains, which makes it the dominant language. But a majority of the population may speak another language in private and everyday contexts, which is absent from the institutional domain, but nevertheless remains the majority language. ‘Minority languages’ are used by a minority of the population and, consequently, play a minor role in the public domain. However, lately there has been a tendency to recognize minority languages as official languages. They were codified (i.e. standardized and given established norms which are stated in grammar books and dictionaries) and included in public and institutional domains. Often these official minority languages are regional and, thus, a country might have one or two national languages and several regional languages (Matras 2009, 45/46). <br />
<br />
However, there is a general tendency in favour of those languages which enjoy institutional backing. They become more and more dominant while others are retreating. People must have certain skills in that dominant language in order to participate in public life. Moreover, the dominant language supersedes other languages by infiltrating domains that were formerly managed by means of another language. But it may also be the case that people extend their activity repertoires and, consequently, their domains of communication which might prompt them to make use of a more dominant language. And this is why so many languages are retreating: They were crowded out of their former domains. Matras puts it as follows: “The stability of multilingualism depends on the stability of activity patterns.” (Matras 1009, 53) Here is an example from northern Germany: In the course of industrialization people had to leave their agricultural working environments and, thus, their villages. In the towns they were confronted with Standard German which led to an increasing use of it at home. Standard German became the language of schooling to allow for national job application. Low German was more and more retreating from its former domains (Matras 2009, 51/52).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the Micro-Level=<br />
<br />
In contrast to societal multilingualism, individual multilingualism deals with individuals that have command of two or more languages. There are two general possibilities: A child may acquire two or more languages by birth or it may learn two or more languages later on. Some parents fear that learning more than one language at such a young age would overstrain their children and negatively affect their academic success. However, this is not the case. Sometimes it can happen that the child is a little slower in the acquisition of one language or in both, but it will catch up sooner or later. In any case, most parents will realize that it benefits their children to have command of more than one language. In addition to practical and professional reasons, multilingual parents want their children to maintain their language for reasons of identity (Auer/Wei 2007, 4).<br />
<br />
A child that acquires more than one language by birth learns to select certain structures, words and later on phrases and sentences, from its linguistic repertoire depending on the addressee. For instance, it knows that it has to address the Italian-speaking father differently than the German-speaking mother. But still it does not know that it is using two different languages. The child has a set of interaction cues and a set of words. With growing social interaction it establishes certain selection rules and demarcation rules that determine the set of words for a certain interaction or activity. It has to choose from two or more components in its linguistic repertoire and will learn later on that these components are languages (Matras 2009, 41). <br />
<br />
==The Dual Language Theory==<br />
<br />
A theoretical basis for what happens when a child learns two or more languages might be the [[Dual Language Theory]] which was proposed by Kecskes (1998) and Kecskes and Papp (2000). This theory assumes that “the language learner is [...] in the process of changing the existing conceptual and linguistic system by adding new information that will result in a qualitative change in the conceptual system and the emergence of a new linguistic system rooted in one and the same conceptual system” (Kecskes 1998, 373). This process is split up into two periods: Language transfer and conceptual change. Language transfer is a unidirectional (L1L2) process and there is a strong dominance of the first language in the conceptual system. The second language is added as another register and the language channels interact. This is considered a negative phenomenon since there occur many grammatical/lexical errors in the second language. The second period is characterized by a change in the linguistic system, in the conceptual system and by bidirectional influence of the languages (L1L2). The result is a conceptual blending of knowledge that comes through either channel which has positive effects on language behaviour and discourse organization (Kecskés 1998, 373/374).<br />
<br />
==Interaction Cues and Code-Switching==<br />
<br />
There are a number of cues which determine the choice of language. This has been mentioned to be the addressee. In this case, interaction settings play an important role, i.e. the language at school might be different from that used in the neighbourhood, and the multilingual speaker has to choose accordingly. Within one interaction setting the language may vary depending on different interaction contexts, especially within the household. Family members may switch to another language when friends are visiting or when they answer the phone (mode/medium of interaction). Another cue that might influence language choice is the topic of conversation. For instance, when talking about school or doing homework, parents might address their child in the language that is spoken at school. But when reprimanding their child, parents might switch to their mother tongue. Be it multilingualism on the macro-level or on the micro-level, there are always languages that are dominant or preferred in specific domains. Connected with that, multilingual speakers build up certain language hierarchies depending on their dominant language and of course on their linguistic skills. A multilingual speaker might not be equally proficient in all his languages. One could assume that the speaker is more proficient in the language he or she uses most frequently, i.e. he can read, write and speak fluently and faultlessly and proves to be competent when dealing with register and style. He or she might be able to speak another language, but is perhaps unable to write it (Matras 2009, 42/43).<br />
<br />
Language demarcation rules enable the speaker to switch between languages according to context. However, the switching does not only occur on context-level, it also occurs on sentence-level. This phenomenon is called [[code-switching]]. It has a bad reputation because it is considered a “debased form of speaking”, “a sign of laziness”, and “a lack of competence”, but, in fact, it is highly functional. It is a conversational strategy for multilingual speakers as is gesture or prosody for monolingual speakers. They simply lack that additional strategy which is very useful for the construction of context, identity and relationships (Auer/Wei 2007, 8).<br />
<br />
== Staying Multilingual==<br />
<br />
Staying multilingual appears to be more problematic than becoming multilingual. This is connected with school and peer groups. Schools are usually dominated by one language which is not necessarily the child’s language. Under favourable conditions the child’s language is still offered at school, but, although the situation has improved in the course of globalization, schools can hardly incorporate more than a handful of languages. And then, they mostly offer those languages which have many speakers, i.e. world languages like English, Spanish, French, perhaps Chinese. Schools still work with national ideologies and build up linguistic hierarchies, favouring more prestigious and powerful languages (Auer/Wei 2007, 5/6). However, there are schools which encourage multilingualism by giving lessons like geography or history in languages other than the official language of the respective region and there are even bilingual nursery schools. Nowadays, one has dismal prospects on the labour market if one is not able to speak at least two languages. Parents are getting more and more conscious about the necessity for their children to speak more than one language.<br />
<br />
=Literature=<br />
<br />
* Auer, Peter/Wei, Li (2007). “Introduction.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-8. <br />
* Crystal, David (2007). “Multilingualism.” In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. 362-365. <br />
* Edwards, John (1995). Multilingualism. London, New York et al.: Penguin Books.<br />
* Edwards, John (2007). “Societal Multilingualism. Reality, Recognition and Response.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li <br />
* Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 447-467.<br />
* Kecskés, I (2006). “Multilingualism. Pragmatic Aspects.” In: Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Ed. by Keith Brown. 2nd ed. Vol. 8. Oxford et al.: Elsevier Ltd. 371-375. <br />
* Matras, Yaron (2009). Language Contact. Cambridge, New York et al: Cambridge University Press.<br />
* Matthews, P. H. (1997). “Multilingual.” In: Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford, New York et al.: Oxford University Press. 235.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Multilingualism&diff=10588Multilingualism2010-02-04T17:17:37Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Definition=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is the situation in which a person has command of, or a community uses, two or more languages. Accordingly, one has to distinguish between multilingualism on the micro-level (individual multilingualism) and multilingualism on the macro-level (societal multilingualism).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the Macro-Level=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is a worldwide phenomenon and, perhaps surprisingly, monolingual persons or societies are exceptional. The misbelief that [[monolingualism]] is the rule is due to the fact that there are only few countries where more than one official language is spoken. Not even a quarter of the world’s nations recognize two official languages (e.g. India, Canada), and only six nations have three or more languages as official languages (e.g. Switzerland, South Africa). Even in those cases there might be other vernaculars and regional languages which are not officially recognized. But this is unavoidable in administrative and bureaucratic respects (Edwards 1995, 33; Edwards 2007, 448). <br />
<br />
Another problem with multilingualism is one of measurement, i.e. the assessment of the extent of multilingualism in a country and, connected with that, the assessment of the proficiency level that is required for a person to count as multilingual. The method used to account for these questions is census. But this is connected with further difficulties: The formulation of questions (intercultural differences in understanding certain concepts, e.g. ‘mother-tongue’), the change of the questions over time which makes censuses incomparable, the subjectivity on the side of the respondents when estimating their proficiency level, the simplification of data coding leaves no room for elaboration or explanation, the problem of interpreting the data (Edwards 2007, 451/452). <br />
<br />
== Reasons for Multilingualism==<br />
<br />
Multilingualism arises when languages get into contact. The reason for language contact is the simple need of communication between human beings with different linguistic backgrounds. One of the occasions that could effect such a situation is population movement, i.e. a group of immigrants gets into contact with the population of the target location. In order to communicate they have to get at least some command of each other’s language. However, sometimes people do not even have to move to come into contact with another language, which would be the case with territorial expansion. Imperialist or colonial policies and associated military and economic pressures prompted peoples to adopt the language of the expansionist regime. But often the colonial influence ceases to be the main factor for the use of the foreign language, and convenience and cultural prestige become dominant reasons. A prominent example is of course the British Empire. Today, all the former British colonies have regained their independence, but many of them, e.g. the African Union, use English as the official language, or one among their official languages.<br />
<br />
Further reasons for multilingualism are trade, religion, multilingual federations and political union (Edwards 2007, 449/450). Canada, for instance, incorporates an English and a French ‘charter’ group. In addition, multilingualism occurs frequently in border areas, for example between Quebec and New England. This is most obviously related to matters of trade and everyday communication. In industrialised settings language learning is mainly rendered possible through institutional backing. Here, multilingualism is often unidirectional, i.e. the language of the politically and economically superior nation will be dominant. In rural areas and ethnically mixed regions, where languages are learned through face-to-face interaction, the use of languages is more balanced because people have equal interest in acquiring each other’s language. Anyway, there is often cultural and educational motivation that prompts people to consider second-or-third language acquisition (Matras 1009, 48). <br />
<br />
== Fluidity, Language Maintenance, Language Shift, Language Death==<br />
<br />
Multilingual settings are always characterized by ‘fluidity’, i.e. the language balance is changing steadily. Multilingualism increases or decreases (Crystal 2007, 362). The latter happens for instance when the next generations of a group of immigrants more and more abandon their parents’ language because their socialisation takes place in the new environment – partly or completely. However, in a time of globalisation the chances for survival for such languages are improving. Studies (Lo 2007; Osman 2006) have shown that members of the second or third generations of immigrant families have opportunities and motivation to maintain their parents’ language. Technological progress allows them to use media in their language and facilitates electronic communication (e.g. via internet) with family or community members (perhaps even in the parents’ home country). Furthermore, there might be the possibility to continue language learning at school and the arrival of new immigrants in the community might lead to fresh contact with culture and, thus, with language. An additional incentive to maintain the parents’ language is a better prospect on the labour market (Matras 50).<br />
<br />
In general, the spread of one language is often at the expense of another and the reason for a language to be more powerful than another is the strength of its community. But there are of course cases when a language can assert its position and withstand the influence of powerful neighbours. This is called [[language maintenance]]. [[Language shift]] occurs when one language cannot resist the influence of a more powerful language and its speakers assimilate to the dominant culture. This may be attended by the [[borrowing]] of vocabulary, but it may also happen that a new ‘hybrid’, i.e. a mixture of the languages, comes into existence. The worst case would be language death, which means that the language is not spoken anymore, as it happened to some Celtic languages (Crystal 2007 362). <br />
<br />
== Bridging Methods==<br />
<br />
People in multilingual settings need multilingual competence. But there are occasions on which insufficient abilities require the use of certain bridging methods. One such method would be the use of a [[lingua franca]]. These are be languages which are often widely spread and which are spoken by powerful and prestigious communities, like, for instance, Latin and France in the past, and English today. Moreover, there are languages that are characterized by a limited vocabulary and a simplified syntax which facilitates their acquisition. These are [[Pidgin]]s and [[Creole]] varieties. Finally, a lingua franca may also be an [[artificial language]], such as [[Esperanto]]. <br />
The other bridging method is the translation from one language into another, which, though being practical, is always a matter of interpretation and judgement. It has to be carried out with due diligence (Edwards 2007, 455/456).<br />
<br />
==Domains of Communication; Dominant, Majority and Minority Languages==<br />
<br />
When considering multilingualism on the macro-level one has to consider so-called ‘domains’ of communication: setting, topic, goal and mode/medium of interaction. There is the assumption that one language will be preferred over another depending on the respective domain (Matras 2009, 45). For instance: A boy in South Africa uses a vernacular when talking to family members or to other people in his town, but at school he uses the official language which is common in this region. Here the choice of language depends on the setting of interaction.<br />
<br />
In stable multilingual settings there is often a ‘dominant’ language which is used preferably in a majority of domains of interaction, especially in public and institutional domains. Accordingly, a certain proficiency level in that language is required for people to be able to participate in the basic domains of social life, e.g. media use, education, formal procedures. The dominant language is often the ‘majority language’ in the state, i.e. the numerical majority of the population uses it as domestic language. However, there are also contexts in which dominant languages are not necessarily majority languages. Such cases can be found in Africa where the use of one official language is promoted in educational and institutional domains, which makes it the dominant language. But a majority of the population may speak another language in private and everyday contexts, which is absent from the institutional domain, but nevertheless remains the majority language. ‘Minority languages’ are used by a minority of the population and, consequently, play a minor role in the public domain. However, lately there has been a tendency to recognize minority languages as official languages. They were codified (i.e. standardized and given established norms which are stated in grammar books and dictionaries) and included in public and institutional domains. Often these official minority languages are regional and, thus, a country might have one or two national languages and several regional languages (Matras 2009, 45/46). <br />
<br />
However, there is a general tendency in favour of those languages which enjoy institutional backing. They become more and more dominant while others are retreating. People must have certain skills in that dominant language in order to participate in public life. Moreover, the dominant language supersedes other languages by infiltrating domains that were formerly managed by means of another language. But it may also be the case that people extend their activity repertoires and, consequently, their domains of communication which might prompt them to make use of a more dominant language. And this is why so many languages are retreating: They were crowded out of their former domains. Matras puts it as follows: “The stability of multilingualism depends on the stability of activity patterns.” (Matras 1009, 53) Here is an example from northern Germany: In the course of industrialization people had to leave their agricultural working environments and, thus, their villages. In the towns they were confronted with Standard German which led to an increasing use of it at home. Standard German became the language of schooling to allow for national job application. Low German was more and more retreating from its former domains (Matras 2009, 51/52).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the Micro-Level=<br />
<br />
In contrast to societal multilingualism, individual multilingualism deals with individuals that have command of two or more languages. There are two general possibilities: A child may acquire two or more languages by birth or it may learn two or more languages later on. Some parents fear that learning more than one language at such a young age would overstrain their children and negatively affect their academic success. However, this is not the case. Sometimes it can happen that the child is a little slower in the acquisition of one language or in both, but it will catch up sooner or later. In any case, most parents will realize that it benefits their children to have command of more than one language. In addition to practical and professional reasons, multilingual parents want their children to maintain their language for reasons of identity (Auer/Wei 2007, 4).<br />
<br />
A child that acquires more than one language by birth learns to select certain structures, words and later on phrases and sentences, from its linguistic repertoire depending on the addressee. For instance, it knows that it has to address the Italian-speaking father differently than the German-speaking mother. But still it does not know that it is using two different languages. The child has a set of interaction cues and a set of words. With growing social interaction it establishes certain selection rules and demarcation rules that determine the set of words for a certain interaction or activity. It has to choose from two or more components in its linguistic repertoire and will learn later on that these components are languages (Matras 2009, 41). <br />
<br />
==The Dual Language Theory==<br />
<br />
A theoretical basis for what happens when a child learns two or more languages might be the [[Dual Language Theory]] which was proposed by Kecskes (1998) and Kecskes and Papp (2000). This theory assumes that “the language learner is [...] in the process of changing the existing conceptual and linguistic system by adding new information that will result in a qualitative change in the conceptual system and the emergence of a new linguistic system rooted in one and the same conceptual system” (Kecskes 1998, 373). This process is split up into two periods: Language transfer and conceptual change. Language transfer is a unidirectional (L1L2) process and there is a strong dominance of the first language in the conceptual system. The second language is added as another register and the language channels interact. This is considered a negative phenomenon since there occur many grammatical/lexical errors in the second language. The second period is characterized by a change in the linguistic system, in the conceptual system and by bidirectional influence of the languages (L1L2). The result is a conceptual blending of knowledge that comes through either channel which has positive effects on language behaviour and discourse organization (Kecskés 1998, 373/374).<br />
<br />
==Interaction Cues and Code-Switching==<br />
<br />
There are a number of cues which determine the choice of language. This has been mentioned to be the addressee. In this case, interaction settings play an important role, i.e. the language at school might be different from that used in the neighbourhood, and the multilingual speaker has to choose accordingly. Within one interaction setting the language may vary depending on different interaction contexts, especially within the household. Family members may switch to another language when friends are visiting or when they answer the phone (mode/medium of interaction). Another cue that might influence language choice is the topic of conversation. For instance, when talking about school or doing homework, parents might address their child in the language that is spoken at school. But when reprimanding their child, parents might switch to their mother tongue. Be it multilingualism on the macro-level or on the micro-level, there are always languages that are dominant or preferred in specific domains. Connected with that, multilingual speakers build up certain language hierarchies depending on their dominant language and of course on their linguistic skills. A multilingual speaker might not be equally proficient in all his languages. One could assume that the speaker is more proficient in the language he or she uses most frequently, i.e. he can read, write and speak fluently and faultlessly and proves to be competent when dealing with register and style. He or she might be able to speak another language, but is perhaps unable to write it (Matras 2009, 42/43).<br />
<br />
Language demarcation rules enable the speaker to switch between languages according to context. However, the switching does not only occur on context-level, it also occurs on sentence-level. This phenomenon is called [[code-switching]]. It has a bad reputation because it is considered a “debased form of speaking”, “a sign of laziness”, and “a lack of competence”, but, in fact, it is highly functional. It is a conversational strategy for multilingual speakers as is gesture or prosody for monolingual speakers. They simply lack that additional strategy which is very useful for the construction of context, identity and relationships (Auer/Wei 2007, 8).<br />
<br />
== Staying Multilingual==<br />
<br />
Staying multilingual appears to be more problematic than becoming multilingual. This is connected with school and peer groups. Schools are usually dominated by one language which is not necessarily the child’s language. Under favourable conditions the child’s language is still offered at school, but, although the situation has improved in the course of globalization, schools can hardly incorporate more than a handful of languages. And then, they mostly offer those languages which have many speakers, i.e. world languages like English, Spanish, French, perhaps Chinese. Schools still work with national ideologies and build up linguistic hierarchies, favouring more prestigious and powerful languages (Auer/Wei 2007, 5/6). However, there are schools which encourage multilingualism by giving lessons like geography or history in languages other than the official language of the respective region and there are even bilingual nursery schools. Nowadays, one has dismal prospects on the labour market if one is not able to speak at least two languages. Parents are getting more and more conscious about the necessity for their children to speak more than one language.<br />
<br />
=Literature=<br />
<br />
* Auer, Peter/Wei, Li (2007). “Introduction.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-8. <br />
* Crystal, David (2007). “Multilingualism.” In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. 362-365. <br />
* Edwards, John (1995). Multilingualism. London, New York et al.: Penguin Books.<br />
* Edwards, John (2007). “Societal Multilingualism. Reality, Recognition and Response.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li <br />
* Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 447-467.<br />
* Kecskés, I (2006). “Multilingualism. Pragmatic Aspects.” In: Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Ed. by Keith Brown. 2nd ed. Vol. 8. Oxford et al.: Elsevier Ltd. 371-375. <br />
* Matras, Yaron (2009). Language Contact. Cambridge, New York et al: Cambridge University Press.<br />
* Matthews, P. H. (1997). “Multilingual.” In: Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford, New York et al.: Oxford University Press. 235.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Multilingualism&diff=10587Multilingualism2010-02-04T17:17:21Z<p>Volker gast: /* Bridging Methods */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Definition=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is the situation in which a person has command of, or a community uses, two or more languages. Accordingly, one has to distinguish between multilingualism on the micro-level (individual multilingualism) and multilingualism on the macro-level (societal multilingualism).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the Macro-Level=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is a worldwide phenomenon and, perhaps surprisingly, monolingual persons or societies are exceptional. The misbelief that [[monolingualism]] is the rule is due to the fact that there are only few countries where more than one official language is spoken. Not even a quarter of the world’s nations recognize two official languages (e.g. India, Canada), and only six nations have three or more languages as official languages (e.g. Switzerland, South Africa). Even in those cases there might be other vernaculars and regional languages which are not officially recognized. But this is unavoidable in administrative and bureaucratic respects (Edwards 1995, 33; Edwards 2007, 448). <br />
<br />
Another problem with multilingualism is one of measurement, i.e. the assessment of the extent of multilingualism in a country and, connected with that, the assessment of the proficiency level that is required for a person to count as multilingual. The method used to account for these questions is census. But this is connected with further difficulties: The formulation of questions (intercultural differences in understanding certain concepts, e.g. ‘mother-tongue’), the change of the questions over time which makes censuses incomparable, the subjectivity on the side of the respondents when estimating their proficiency level, the simplification of data coding leaves no room for elaboration or explanation, the problem of interpreting the data (Edwards 2007, 451/452). <br />
<br />
== Reasons for Multilingualism==<br />
<br />
Multilingualism arises when languages get into contact. The reason for language contact is the simple need of communication between human beings with different linguistic backgrounds. One of the occasions that could effect such a situation is population movement, i.e. a group of immigrants gets into contact with the population of the target location. In order to communicate they have to get at least some command of each other’s language. However, sometimes people do not even have to move to come into contact with another language, which would be the case with territorial expansion. Imperialist or colonial policies and associated military and economic pressures prompted peoples to adopt the language of the expansionist regime. But often the colonial influence ceases to be the main factor for the use of the foreign language, and convenience and cultural prestige become dominant reasons. A prominent example is of course the British Empire. Today, all the former British colonies have regained their independence, but many of them, e.g. the African Union, use English as the official language, or one among their official languages.<br />
<br />
Further reasons for multilingualism are trade, religion, multilingual federations and political union (Edwards 2007, 449/450). Canada, for instance, incorporates an English and a French ‘charter’ group. In addition, multilingualism occurs frequently in border areas, for example between Quebec and New England. This is most obviously related to matters of trade and everyday communication. In industrialised settings language learning is mainly rendered possible through institutional backing. Here, multilingualism is often unidirectional, i.e. the language of the politically and economically superior nation will be dominant. In rural areas and ethnically mixed regions, where languages are learned through face-to-face interaction, the use of languages is more balanced because people have equal interest in acquiring each other’s language. Anyway, there is often cultural and educational motivation that prompts people to consider second-or-third language acquisition (Matras 1009, 48). <br />
<br />
== Fluidity, Language Maintenance, Language Shift, Language Death==<br />
<br />
Multilingual settings are always characterized by ‘fluidity’, i.e. the language balance is changing steadily. Multilingualism increases or decreases (Crystal 2007, 362). The latter happens for instance when the next generations of a group of immigrants more and more abandon their parents’ language because their socialisation takes place in the new environment – partly or completely. However, in a time of globalisation the chances for survival for such languages are improving. Studies (Lo 2007; Osman 2006) have shown that members of the second or third generations of immigrant families have opportunities and motivation to maintain their parents’ language. Technological progress allows them to use media in their language and facilitates electronic communication (e.g. via internet) with family or community members (perhaps even in the parents’ home country). Furthermore, there might be the possibility to continue language learning at school and the arrival of new immigrants in the community might lead to fresh contact with culture and, thus, with language. An additional incentive to maintain the parents’ language is a better prospect on the labour market (Matras 50).<br />
<br />
In general, the spread of one language is often at the expense of another and the reason for a language to be more powerful than another is the strength of its community. But there are of course cases when a language can assert its position and withstand the influence of powerful neighbours. This is called [[language maintenance]]. [[Language shift]] occurs when one language cannot resist the influence of a more powerful language and its speakers assimilate to the dominant culture. This may be attended by the [[borrowing]] of vocabulary, but it may also happen that a new ‘hybrid’, i.e. a mixture of the languages, comes into existence. The worst case would be language death, which means that the language is not spoken anymore, as it happened to some Celtic languages (Crystal 2007 362). <br />
<br />
== Bridging Methods==<br />
<br />
People in multilingual settings need multilingual competence. But there are occasions on which insufficient abilities require the use of certain bridging methods. One such method would be the use of a [[lingua franca]]. These are be languages which are often widely spread and which are spoken by powerful and prestigious communities, like, for instance, Latin and France in the past, and English today. Moreover, there are languages that are characterized by a limited vocabulary and a simplified syntax which facilitates their acquisition. These are [[Pidgin]]s and [[Creole]] varieties. Finally, a lingua franca may also be an [[artificial language]], such as [[Esperanto]]. <br />
The other bridging method is the translation from one language into another, which, though being practical, is always a matter of interpretation and judgement. It has to be carried out with due diligence (Edwards 2007, 455/456).<br />
<br />
==Domains of Communication; Dominant, Majority and Minority Languages==<br />
<br />
When considering multilingualism on the macro-level one has to consider so-called ‘domains’ of communication: setting, topic, goal and mode/medium of interaction. There is the assumption that one language will be preferred over another depending on the respective domain (Matras 2009, 45). For instance: A boy in South Africa uses a vernacular when talking to family members or to other people in his town, but at school he uses the official language which is common in this region. Here the choice of language depends on the setting of interaction.<br />
<br />
In stable multilingual settings there is often a ‘dominant’ language which is used preferably in a majority of domains of interaction, especially in public and institutional domains. Accordingly, a certain proficiency level in that language is required for people to be able to participate in the basic domains of social life, e.g. media use, education, formal procedures. The dominant language is often the ‘majority language’ in the state, i.e. the numerical majority of the population uses it as domestic language. However, there are also contexts in which dominant languages are not necessarily majority languages. Such cases can be found in Africa where the use of one official language is promoted in educational and institutional domains, which makes it the dominant language. But a majority of the population may speak another language in private and everyday contexts, which is absent from the institutional domain, but nevertheless remains the majority language. ‘Minority languages’ are used by a minority of the population and, consequently, play a minor role in the public domain. However, lately there has been a tendency to recognize minority languages as official languages. They were codified (i.e. standardized and given established norms which are stated in grammar books and dictionaries) and included in public and institutional domains. Often these official minority languages are regional and, thus, a country might have one or two national languages and several regional languages (Matras 2009, 45/46). <br />
<br />
However, there is a general tendency in favour of those languages which enjoy institutional backing. They become more and more dominant while others are retreating. People must have certain skills in that dominant language in order to participate in public life. Moreover, the dominant language supersedes other languages by infiltrating domains that were formerly managed by means of another language. But it may also be the case that people extend their activity repertoires and, consequently, their domains of communication which might prompt them to make use of a more dominant language. And this is why so many languages are retreating: They were crowded out of their former domains. Matras puts it as follows: “The stability of multilingualism depends on the stability of activity patterns.” (Matras 1009, 53) Here is an example from northern Germany: In the course of industrialization people had to leave their agricultural working environments and, thus, their villages. In the towns they were confronted with Standard German which led to an increasing use of it at home. Standard German became the language of schooling to allow for national job application. Low German was more and more retreating from its former domains (Matras 2009, 51/52).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the Micro-Level=<br />
<br />
In contrast to societal multilingualism, individual multilingualism deals with individuals that have command of two or more languages. There are two general possibilities: A child may acquire two or more languages by birth or it may learn two or more languages later on. Some parents fear that learning more than one language at such a young age would overstrain their children and negatively affect their academic success. However, this is not the case. Sometimes it can happen that the child is a little slower in the acquisition of one language or in both, but it will catch up sooner or later. In any case, most parents will realize that it benefits their children to have command of more than one language. In addition to practical and professional reasons, multilingual parents want their children to maintain their language for reasons of identity (Auer/Wei 2007, 4).<br />
<br />
A child that acquires more than one language by birth learns to select certain structures, words and later on phrases and sentences, from its linguistic repertoire depending on the addressee. For instance, it knows that it has to address the Italian-speaking father differently than the German-speaking mother. But still it does not know that it is using two different languages. The child has a set of interaction cues and a set of words. With growing social interaction it establishes certain selection rules and demarcation rules that determine the set of words for a certain interaction or activity. It has to choose from two or more components in its linguistic repertoire and will learn later on that these components are languages (Matras 2009, 41). <br />
<br />
==The Dual Language Theory==<br />
<br />
A theoretical basis for what happens when a child learns two or more languages might be the [[Dual Language Theory]] which was proposed by Kecskes (1998) and Kecskes and Papp (2000). This theory assumes that “the language learner is [...] in the process of changing the existing conceptual and linguistic system by adding new information that will result in a qualitative change in the conceptual system and the emergence of a new linguistic system rooted in one and the same conceptual system” (Kecskes 1998, 373). This process is split up into two periods: Language transfer and conceptual change. Language transfer is a unidirectional (L1L2) process and there is a strong dominance of the first language in the conceptual system. The second language is added as another register and the language channels interact. This is considered a negative phenomenon since there occur many grammatical/lexical errors in the second language. The second period is characterized by a change in the linguistic system, in the conceptual system and by bidirectional influence of the languages (L1L2). The result is a conceptual blending of knowledge that comes through either channel which has positive effects on language behaviour and discourse organization (Kecskés 1998, 373/374).<br />
<br />
==Interaction Cues and Code-Switching==<br />
<br />
There are a number of cues which determine the choice of language. This has been mentioned to be the addressee. In this case, interaction settings play an important role, i.e. the language at school might be different from that used in the neighbourhood, and the multilingual speaker has to choose accordingly. Within one interaction setting the language may vary depending on different interaction contexts, especially within the household. Family members may switch to another language when friends are visiting or when they answer the phone (mode/medium of interaction). Another cue that might influence language choice is the topic of conversation. For instance, when talking about school or doing homework, parents might address their child in the language that is spoken at school. But when reprimanding their child, parents might switch to their mother tongue. Be it multilingualism on the macro-level or on the micro-level, there are always languages that are dominant or preferred in specific domains. Connected with that, multilingual speakers build up certain language hierarchies depending on their dominant language and of course on their linguistic skills. A multilingual speaker might not be equally proficient in all his languages. One could assume that the speaker is more proficient in the language he or she uses most frequently, i.e. he can read, write and speak fluently and faultlessly and proves to be competent when dealing with register and style. He or she might be able to speak another language, but is perhaps unable to write it (Matras 2009, 42/43).<br />
<br />
Language demarcation rules enable the speaker to switch between languages according to context. However, the switching does not only occur on context-level, it also occurs on sentence-level. This phenomenon is called [[code-switching]]. It has a bad reputation because it is considered a “debased form of speaking”, “a sign of laziness”, and “a lack of competence”, but, in fact, it is highly functional. It is a conversational strategy for multilingual speakers as is gesture or prosody for monolingual speakers. They simply lack that additional strategy which is very useful for the construction of context, identity and relationships (Auer/Wei 2007, 8).<br />
<br />
== Staying Multilingual==<br />
<br />
Staying multilingual appears to be more problematic than becoming multilingual. This is connected with school and peer groups. Schools are usually dominated by one language which is not necessarily the child’s language. Under favourable conditions the child’s language is still offered at school, but, although the situation has improved in the course of globalization, schools can hardly incorporate more than a handful of languages. And then, they mostly offer those languages which have many speakers, i.e. world languages like English, Spanish, French, perhaps Chinese. Schools still work with national ideologies and build up linguistic hierarchies, favouring more prestigious and powerful languages (Auer/Wei 2007, 5/6). However, there are schools which encourage multilingualism by giving lessons like geography or history in languages other than the official language of the respective region and there are even bilingual nursery schools. Nowadays, one has dismal prospects on the labour market if one is not able to speak at least two languages. Parents are getting more and more conscious about the necessity for their children to speak more than one language.<br />
<br />
<br />
* Auer, Peter/Wei, Li (2007). “Introduction.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-8. <br />
* Crystal, David (2007). “Multilingualism.” In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. 362-365. <br />
* Edwards, John (1995). Multilingualism. London, New York et al.: Penguin Books.<br />
* Edwards, John (2007). “Societal Multilingualism. Reality, Recognition and Response.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li <br />
* Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 447-467.<br />
* Kecskés, I (2006). “Multilingualism. Pragmatic Aspects.” In: Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Ed. by Keith Brown. 2nd ed. Vol. 8. Oxford et al.: Elsevier Ltd. 371-375. <br />
* Matras, Yaron (2009). Language Contact. Cambridge, New York et al: Cambridge University Press.<br />
* Matthews, P. H. (1997). “Multilingual.” In: Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford, New York et al.: Oxford University Press. 235.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Multilingualism&diff=10586Multilingualism2010-02-04T17:17:08Z<p>Volker gast: /* Multilingualism on the Macro-Level */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Definition=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is the situation in which a person has command of, or a community uses, two or more languages. Accordingly, one has to distinguish between multilingualism on the micro-level (individual multilingualism) and multilingualism on the macro-level (societal multilingualism).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the Macro-Level=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is a worldwide phenomenon and, perhaps surprisingly, monolingual persons or societies are exceptional. The misbelief that [[monolingualism]] is the rule is due to the fact that there are only few countries where more than one official language is spoken. Not even a quarter of the world’s nations recognize two official languages (e.g. India, Canada), and only six nations have three or more languages as official languages (e.g. Switzerland, South Africa). Even in those cases there might be other vernaculars and regional languages which are not officially recognized. But this is unavoidable in administrative and bureaucratic respects (Edwards 1995, 33; Edwards 2007, 448). <br />
<br />
Another problem with multilingualism is one of measurement, i.e. the assessment of the extent of multilingualism in a country and, connected with that, the assessment of the proficiency level that is required for a person to count as multilingual. The method used to account for these questions is census. But this is connected with further difficulties: The formulation of questions (intercultural differences in understanding certain concepts, e.g. ‘mother-tongue’), the change of the questions over time which makes censuses incomparable, the subjectivity on the side of the respondents when estimating their proficiency level, the simplification of data coding leaves no room for elaboration or explanation, the problem of interpreting the data (Edwards 2007, 451/452). <br />
<br />
== Reasons for Multilingualism==<br />
<br />
Multilingualism arises when languages get into contact. The reason for language contact is the simple need of communication between human beings with different linguistic backgrounds. One of the occasions that could effect such a situation is population movement, i.e. a group of immigrants gets into contact with the population of the target location. In order to communicate they have to get at least some command of each other’s language. However, sometimes people do not even have to move to come into contact with another language, which would be the case with territorial expansion. Imperialist or colonial policies and associated military and economic pressures prompted peoples to adopt the language of the expansionist regime. But often the colonial influence ceases to be the main factor for the use of the foreign language, and convenience and cultural prestige become dominant reasons. A prominent example is of course the British Empire. Today, all the former British colonies have regained their independence, but many of them, e.g. the African Union, use English as the official language, or one among their official languages.<br />
<br />
Further reasons for multilingualism are trade, religion, multilingual federations and political union (Edwards 2007, 449/450). Canada, for instance, incorporates an English and a French ‘charter’ group. In addition, multilingualism occurs frequently in border areas, for example between Quebec and New England. This is most obviously related to matters of trade and everyday communication. In industrialised settings language learning is mainly rendered possible through institutional backing. Here, multilingualism is often unidirectional, i.e. the language of the politically and economically superior nation will be dominant. In rural areas and ethnically mixed regions, where languages are learned through face-to-face interaction, the use of languages is more balanced because people have equal interest in acquiring each other’s language. Anyway, there is often cultural and educational motivation that prompts people to consider second-or-third language acquisition (Matras 1009, 48). <br />
<br />
== Fluidity, Language Maintenance, Language Shift, Language Death==<br />
<br />
Multilingual settings are always characterized by ‘fluidity’, i.e. the language balance is changing steadily. Multilingualism increases or decreases (Crystal 2007, 362). The latter happens for instance when the next generations of a group of immigrants more and more abandon their parents’ language because their socialisation takes place in the new environment – partly or completely. However, in a time of globalisation the chances for survival for such languages are improving. Studies (Lo 2007; Osman 2006) have shown that members of the second or third generations of immigrant families have opportunities and motivation to maintain their parents’ language. Technological progress allows them to use media in their language and facilitates electronic communication (e.g. via internet) with family or community members (perhaps even in the parents’ home country). Furthermore, there might be the possibility to continue language learning at school and the arrival of new immigrants in the community might lead to fresh contact with culture and, thus, with language. An additional incentive to maintain the parents’ language is a better prospect on the labour market (Matras 50).<br />
<br />
In general, the spread of one language is often at the expense of another and the reason for a language to be more powerful than another is the strength of its community. But there are of course cases when a language can assert its position and withstand the influence of powerful neighbours. This is called [[language maintenance]]. [[Language shift]] occurs when one language cannot resist the influence of a more powerful language and its speakers assimilate to the dominant culture. This may be attended by the [[borrowing]] of vocabulary, but it may also happen that a new ‘hybrid’, i.e. a mixture of the languages, comes into existence. The worst case would be language death, which means that the language is not spoken anymore, as it happened to some Celtic languages (Crystal 2007 362). <br />
<br />
== Bridging Methods==<br />
<br />
People in multilingual settings need multilingual competence. But there are occasions on which insufficient abilities require the use of certain bridging methods. One such method would be the use of a [[lingua franca]]. These are be languages which are often widely spread and which are spoken by powerful and prestigious communities, like, for instance, Latin and France in the past, and English today. Moreover, there are languages that are characterized by a limited vocabulary and a simplified syntax which facilitates their acquisition. These are [[Pidgin]]s and [[Creole]] varieties. Finally, a lingua franca may also be an [[artificial language]], such as [[Esperanto]]. <br />
The other bridging method is the translation from one language into another, which, though being practical, is always a matter of interpretation and judgement. It has to be carried out with due diligence (Edwards 2007, 455/456).<br />
<br />
2.4 Domains of Communication; Dominant, Majority and Minority Languages<br />
<br />
When considering multilingualism on the macro-level one has to consider so-called ‘domains’ of communication: setting, topic, goal and mode/medium of interaction. There is the assumption that one language will be preferred over another depending on the respective domain (Matras 2009, 45). For instance: A boy in South Africa uses a vernacular when talking to family members or to other people in his town, but at school he uses the official language which is common in this region. Here the choice of language depends on the setting of interaction.<br />
<br />
In stable multilingual settings there is often a ‘dominant’ language which is used preferably in a majority of domains of interaction, especially in public and institutional domains. Accordingly, a certain proficiency level in that language is required for people to be able to participate in the basic domains of social life, e.g. media use, education, formal procedures. The dominant language is often the ‘majority language’ in the state, i.e. the numerical majority of the population uses it as domestic language. However, there are also contexts in which dominant languages are not necessarily majority languages. Such cases can be found in Africa where the use of one official language is promoted in educational and institutional domains, which makes it the dominant language. But a majority of the population may speak another language in private and everyday contexts, which is absent from the institutional domain, but nevertheless remains the majority language. ‘Minority languages’ are used by a minority of the population and, consequently, play a minor role in the public domain. However, lately there has been a tendency to recognize minority languages as official languages. They were codified (i.e. standardized and given established norms which are stated in grammar books and dictionaries) and included in public and institutional domains. Often these official minority languages are regional and, thus, a country might have one or two national languages and several regional languages (Matras 2009, 45/46). <br />
<br />
However, there is a general tendency in favour of those languages which enjoy institutional backing. They become more and more dominant while others are retreating. People must have certain skills in that dominant language in order to participate in public life. Moreover, the dominant language supersedes other languages by infiltrating domains that were formerly managed by means of another language. But it may also be the case that people extend their activity repertoires and, consequently, their domains of communication which might prompt them to make use of a more dominant language. And this is why so many languages are retreating: They were crowded out of their former domains. Matras puts it as follows: “The stability of multilingualism depends on the stability of activity patterns.” (Matras 1009, 53) Here is an example from northern Germany: In the course of industrialization people had to leave their agricultural working environments and, thus, their villages. In the towns they were confronted with Standard German which led to an increasing use of it at home. Standard German became the language of schooling to allow for national job application. Low German was more and more retreating from its former domains (Matras 2009, 51/52).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the Micro-Level=<br />
<br />
In contrast to societal multilingualism, individual multilingualism deals with individuals that have command of two or more languages. There are two general possibilities: A child may acquire two or more languages by birth or it may learn two or more languages later on. Some parents fear that learning more than one language at such a young age would overstrain their children and negatively affect their academic success. However, this is not the case. Sometimes it can happen that the child is a little slower in the acquisition of one language or in both, but it will catch up sooner or later. In any case, most parents will realize that it benefits their children to have command of more than one language. In addition to practical and professional reasons, multilingual parents want their children to maintain their language for reasons of identity (Auer/Wei 2007, 4).<br />
<br />
A child that acquires more than one language by birth learns to select certain structures, words and later on phrases and sentences, from its linguistic repertoire depending on the addressee. For instance, it knows that it has to address the Italian-speaking father differently than the German-speaking mother. But still it does not know that it is using two different languages. The child has a set of interaction cues and a set of words. With growing social interaction it establishes certain selection rules and demarcation rules that determine the set of words for a certain interaction or activity. It has to choose from two or more components in its linguistic repertoire and will learn later on that these components are languages (Matras 2009, 41). <br />
<br />
==The Dual Language Theory==<br />
<br />
A theoretical basis for what happens when a child learns two or more languages might be the [[Dual Language Theory]] which was proposed by Kecskes (1998) and Kecskes and Papp (2000). This theory assumes that “the language learner is [...] in the process of changing the existing conceptual and linguistic system by adding new information that will result in a qualitative change in the conceptual system and the emergence of a new linguistic system rooted in one and the same conceptual system” (Kecskes 1998, 373). This process is split up into two periods: Language transfer and conceptual change. Language transfer is a unidirectional (L1L2) process and there is a strong dominance of the first language in the conceptual system. The second language is added as another register and the language channels interact. This is considered a negative phenomenon since there occur many grammatical/lexical errors in the second language. The second period is characterized by a change in the linguistic system, in the conceptual system and by bidirectional influence of the languages (L1L2). The result is a conceptual blending of knowledge that comes through either channel which has positive effects on language behaviour and discourse organization (Kecskés 1998, 373/374).<br />
<br />
==Interaction Cues and Code-Switching==<br />
<br />
There are a number of cues which determine the choice of language. This has been mentioned to be the addressee. In this case, interaction settings play an important role, i.e. the language at school might be different from that used in the neighbourhood, and the multilingual speaker has to choose accordingly. Within one interaction setting the language may vary depending on different interaction contexts, especially within the household. Family members may switch to another language when friends are visiting or when they answer the phone (mode/medium of interaction). Another cue that might influence language choice is the topic of conversation. For instance, when talking about school or doing homework, parents might address their child in the language that is spoken at school. But when reprimanding their child, parents might switch to their mother tongue. Be it multilingualism on the macro-level or on the micro-level, there are always languages that are dominant or preferred in specific domains. Connected with that, multilingual speakers build up certain language hierarchies depending on their dominant language and of course on their linguistic skills. A multilingual speaker might not be equally proficient in all his languages. One could assume that the speaker is more proficient in the language he or she uses most frequently, i.e. he can read, write and speak fluently and faultlessly and proves to be competent when dealing with register and style. He or she might be able to speak another language, but is perhaps unable to write it (Matras 2009, 42/43).<br />
<br />
Language demarcation rules enable the speaker to switch between languages according to context. However, the switching does not only occur on context-level, it also occurs on sentence-level. This phenomenon is called [[code-switching]]. It has a bad reputation because it is considered a “debased form of speaking”, “a sign of laziness”, and “a lack of competence”, but, in fact, it is highly functional. It is a conversational strategy for multilingual speakers as is gesture or prosody for monolingual speakers. They simply lack that additional strategy which is very useful for the construction of context, identity and relationships (Auer/Wei 2007, 8).<br />
<br />
== Staying Multilingual==<br />
<br />
Staying multilingual appears to be more problematic than becoming multilingual. This is connected with school and peer groups. Schools are usually dominated by one language which is not necessarily the child’s language. Under favourable conditions the child’s language is still offered at school, but, although the situation has improved in the course of globalization, schools can hardly incorporate more than a handful of languages. And then, they mostly offer those languages which have many speakers, i.e. world languages like English, Spanish, French, perhaps Chinese. Schools still work with national ideologies and build up linguistic hierarchies, favouring more prestigious and powerful languages (Auer/Wei 2007, 5/6). However, there are schools which encourage multilingualism by giving lessons like geography or history in languages other than the official language of the respective region and there are even bilingual nursery schools. Nowadays, one has dismal prospects on the labour market if one is not able to speak at least two languages. Parents are getting more and more conscious about the necessity for their children to speak more than one language.<br />
<br />
<br />
* Auer, Peter/Wei, Li (2007). “Introduction.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-8. <br />
* Crystal, David (2007). “Multilingualism.” In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. 362-365. <br />
* Edwards, John (1995). Multilingualism. London, New York et al.: Penguin Books.<br />
* Edwards, John (2007). “Societal Multilingualism. Reality, Recognition and Response.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li <br />
* Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 447-467.<br />
* Kecskés, I (2006). “Multilingualism. Pragmatic Aspects.” In: Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Ed. by Keith Brown. 2nd ed. Vol. 8. Oxford et al.: Elsevier Ltd. 371-375. <br />
* Matras, Yaron (2009). Language Contact. Cambridge, New York et al: Cambridge University Press.<br />
* Matthews, P. H. (1997). “Multilingual.” In: Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford, New York et al.: Oxford University Press. 235.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Multilingualism&diff=10585Multilingualism2010-02-04T17:16:37Z<p>Volker gast: based on a term paper by Julia Enders</p>
<hr />
<div>=Definition=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is the situation in which a person has command of, or a community uses, two or more languages. Accordingly, one has to distinguish between multilingualism on the micro-level (individual multilingualism) and multilingualism on the macro-level (societal multilingualism).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the Macro-Level=<br />
<br />
Multilingualism is a worldwide phenomenon and, perhaps surprisingly, monolingual persons or societies are exceptional. The misbelief that [[monolingualism]] is the rule is due to the fact that there are only few countries where more than one official language is spoken. Not even a quarter of the world’s nations recognize two official languages (e.g. India, Canada), and only six nations have three or more languages as official languages (e.g. Switzerland, South Africa). Even in those cases there might be other vernaculars and regional languages which are not officially recognized. But this is unavoidable in administrative and bureaucratic respects (Edwards 1995, 33/Edwards 2007, 448). <br />
<br />
Another problem with multilingualism is one of measurement, i.e. the assessment of the extent of multilingualism in a country and, connected with that, the assessment of the proficiency level that is required for a person to count as multilingual. The method used to account for these questions is census. But this is connected with further difficulties: The formulation of questions (intercultural differences in understanding certain concepts, e.g. ‘mother-tongue’), the change of the questions over time which makes censuses incomparable, the subjectivity on the side of the respondents when estimating their proficiency level, the simplification of data coding leaves no room for elaboration or explanation, the problem of interpreting the data (Edwards 2007, 451/452). <br />
<br />
== Reasons for Multilingualism==<br />
<br />
Multilingualism arises when languages get into contact. The reason for language contact is the simple need of communication between human beings with different linguistic backgrounds. One of the occasions that could effect such a situation is population movement, i.e. a group of immigrants gets into contact with the population of the target location. In order to communicate they have to get at least some command of each other’s language. However, sometimes people do not even have to move to come into contact with another language, which would be the case with territorial expansion. Imperialist or colonial policies and associated military and economic pressures prompted peoples to adopt the language of the expansionist regime. But often the colonial influence ceases to be the main factor for the use of the foreign language, and convenience and cultural prestige become dominant reasons. A prominent example is of course the British Empire. Today, all the former British colonies have regained their independence, but many of them, e.g. the African Union, use English as the official language, or one among their official languages.<br />
<br />
Further reasons for multilingualism are trade, religion, multilingual federations and political union (Edwards 2007, 449/450). Canada, for instance, incorporates an English and a French ‘charter’ group. In addition, multilingualism occurs frequently in border areas, for example between Quebec and New England. This is most obviously related to matters of trade and everyday communication. In industrialised settings language learning is mainly rendered possible through institutional backing. Here, multilingualism is often unidirectional, i.e. the language of the politically and economically superior nation will be dominant. In rural areas and ethnically mixed regions, where languages are learned through face-to-face interaction, the use of languages is more balanced because people have equal interest in acquiring each other’s language. Anyway, there is often cultural and educational motivation that prompts people to consider second-or-third language acquisition (Matras 1009, 48). <br />
<br />
== Fluidity, Language Maintenance, Language Shift, Language Death==<br />
<br />
Multilingual settings are always characterized by ‘fluidity’, i.e. the language balance is changing steadily. Multilingualism increases or decreases (Crystal 2007, 362). The latter happens for instance when the next generations of a group of immigrants more and more abandon their parents’ language because their socialisation takes place in the new environment – partly or completely. However, in a time of globalisation the chances for survival for such languages are improving. Studies (Lo 2007; Osman 2006) have shown that members of the second or third generations of immigrant families have opportunities and motivation to maintain their parents’ language. Technological progress allows them to use media in their language and facilitates electronic communication (e.g. via internet) with family or community members (perhaps even in the parents’ home country). Furthermore, there might be the possibility to continue language learning at school and the arrival of new immigrants in the community might lead to fresh contact with culture and, thus, with language. An additional incentive to maintain the parents’ language is a better prospect on the labour market (Matras 50).<br />
<br />
In general, the spread of one language is often at the expense of another and the reason for a language to be more powerful than another is the strength of its community. But there are of course cases when a language can assert its position and withstand the influence of powerful neighbours. This is called [[language maintenance]]. [[Language shift]] occurs when one language cannot resist the influence of a more powerful language and its speakers assimilate to the dominant culture. This may be attended by the [[borrowing]] of vocabulary, but it may also happen that a new ‘hybrid’, i.e. a mixture of the languages, comes into existence. The worst case would be language death, which means that the language is not spoken anymore, as it happened to some Celtic languages (Crystal 2007 362). <br />
<br />
== Bridging Methods==<br />
<br />
People in multilingual settings need multilingual competence. But there are occasions on which insufficient abilities require the use of certain bridging methods. One such method would be the use of a [[lingua franca]]. These are be languages which are often widely spread and which are spoken by powerful and prestigious communities, like, for instance, Latin and France in the past, and English today. Moreover, there are languages that are characterized by a limited vocabulary and a simplified syntax which facilitates their acquisition. These are [[Pidgin]]s and [[Creole]] varieties. Finally, a lingua franca may also be an [[artificial language]], such as [[Esperanto]]. <br />
The other bridging method is the translation from one language into another, which, though being practical, is always a matter of interpretation and judgement. It has to be carried out with due diligence (Edwards 2007, 455/456).<br />
<br />
2.4 Domains of Communication; Dominant, Majority and Minority Languages<br />
<br />
When considering multilingualism on the macro-level one has to consider so-called ‘domains’ of communication: setting, topic, goal and mode/medium of interaction. There is the assumption that one language will be preferred over another depending on the respective domain (Matras 2009, 45). For instance: A boy in South Africa uses a vernacular when talking to family members or to other people in his town, but at school he uses the official language which is common in this region. Here the choice of language depends on the setting of interaction.<br />
<br />
In stable multilingual settings there is often a ‘dominant’ language which is used preferably in a majority of domains of interaction, especially in public and institutional domains. Accordingly, a certain proficiency level in that language is required for people to be able to participate in the basic domains of social life, e.g. media use, education, formal procedures. The dominant language is often the ‘majority language’ in the state, i.e. the numerical majority of the population uses it as domestic language. However, there are also contexts in which dominant languages are not necessarily majority languages. Such cases can be found in Africa where the use of one official language is promoted in educational and institutional domains, which makes it the dominant language. But a majority of the population may speak another language in private and everyday contexts, which is absent from the institutional domain, but nevertheless remains the majority language. ‘Minority languages’ are used by a minority of the population and, consequently, play a minor role in the public domain. However, lately there has been a tendency to recognize minority languages as official languages. They were codified (i.e. standardized and given established norms which are stated in grammar books and dictionaries) and included in public and institutional domains. Often these official minority languages are regional and, thus, a country might have one or two national languages and several regional languages (Matras 2009, 45/46). <br />
<br />
However, there is a general tendency in favour of those languages which enjoy institutional backing. They become more and more dominant while others are retreating. People must have certain skills in that dominant language in order to participate in public life. Moreover, the dominant language supersedes other languages by infiltrating domains that were formerly managed by means of another language. But it may also be the case that people extend their activity repertoires and, consequently, their domains of communication which might prompt them to make use of a more dominant language. And this is why so many languages are retreating: They were crowded out of their former domains. Matras puts it as follows: “The stability of multilingualism depends on the stability of activity patterns.” (Matras 1009, 53) Here is an example from northern Germany: In the course of industrialization people had to leave their agricultural working environments and, thus, their villages. In the towns they were confronted with Standard German which led to an increasing use of it at home. Standard German became the language of schooling to allow for national job application. Low German was more and more retreating from its former domains (Matras 2009, 51/52).<br />
<br />
= Multilingualism on the Micro-Level=<br />
<br />
In contrast to societal multilingualism, individual multilingualism deals with individuals that have command of two or more languages. There are two general possibilities: A child may acquire two or more languages by birth or it may learn two or more languages later on. Some parents fear that learning more than one language at such a young age would overstrain their children and negatively affect their academic success. However, this is not the case. Sometimes it can happen that the child is a little slower in the acquisition of one language or in both, but it will catch up sooner or later. In any case, most parents will realize that it benefits their children to have command of more than one language. In addition to practical and professional reasons, multilingual parents want their children to maintain their language for reasons of identity (Auer/Wei 2007, 4).<br />
<br />
A child that acquires more than one language by birth learns to select certain structures, words and later on phrases and sentences, from its linguistic repertoire depending on the addressee. For instance, it knows that it has to address the Italian-speaking father differently than the German-speaking mother. But still it does not know that it is using two different languages. The child has a set of interaction cues and a set of words. With growing social interaction it establishes certain selection rules and demarcation rules that determine the set of words for a certain interaction or activity. It has to choose from two or more components in its linguistic repertoire and will learn later on that these components are languages (Matras 2009, 41). <br />
<br />
==The Dual Language Theory==<br />
<br />
A theoretical basis for what happens when a child learns two or more languages might be the [[Dual Language Theory]] which was proposed by Kecskes (1998) and Kecskes and Papp (2000). This theory assumes that “the language learner is [...] in the process of changing the existing conceptual and linguistic system by adding new information that will result in a qualitative change in the conceptual system and the emergence of a new linguistic system rooted in one and the same conceptual system” (Kecskes 1998, 373). This process is split up into two periods: Language transfer and conceptual change. Language transfer is a unidirectional (L1L2) process and there is a strong dominance of the first language in the conceptual system. The second language is added as another register and the language channels interact. This is considered a negative phenomenon since there occur many grammatical/lexical errors in the second language. The second period is characterized by a change in the linguistic system, in the conceptual system and by bidirectional influence of the languages (L1L2). The result is a conceptual blending of knowledge that comes through either channel which has positive effects on language behaviour and discourse organization (Kecskés 1998, 373/374).<br />
<br />
==Interaction Cues and Code-Switching==<br />
<br />
There are a number of cues which determine the choice of language. This has been mentioned to be the addressee. In this case, interaction settings play an important role, i.e. the language at school might be different from that used in the neighbourhood, and the multilingual speaker has to choose accordingly. Within one interaction setting the language may vary depending on different interaction contexts, especially within the household. Family members may switch to another language when friends are visiting or when they answer the phone (mode/medium of interaction). Another cue that might influence language choice is the topic of conversation. For instance, when talking about school or doing homework, parents might address their child in the language that is spoken at school. But when reprimanding their child, parents might switch to their mother tongue. Be it multilingualism on the macro-level or on the micro-level, there are always languages that are dominant or preferred in specific domains. Connected with that, multilingual speakers build up certain language hierarchies depending on their dominant language and of course on their linguistic skills. A multilingual speaker might not be equally proficient in all his languages. One could assume that the speaker is more proficient in the language he or she uses most frequently, i.e. he can read, write and speak fluently and faultlessly and proves to be competent when dealing with register and style. He or she might be able to speak another language, but is perhaps unable to write it (Matras 2009, 42/43).<br />
<br />
Language demarcation rules enable the speaker to switch between languages according to context. However, the switching does not only occur on context-level, it also occurs on sentence-level. This phenomenon is called [[code-switching]]. It has a bad reputation because it is considered a “debased form of speaking”, “a sign of laziness”, and “a lack of competence”, but, in fact, it is highly functional. It is a conversational strategy for multilingual speakers as is gesture or prosody for monolingual speakers. They simply lack that additional strategy which is very useful for the construction of context, identity and relationships (Auer/Wei 2007, 8).<br />
<br />
== Staying Multilingual==<br />
<br />
Staying multilingual appears to be more problematic than becoming multilingual. This is connected with school and peer groups. Schools are usually dominated by one language which is not necessarily the child’s language. Under favourable conditions the child’s language is still offered at school, but, although the situation has improved in the course of globalization, schools can hardly incorporate more than a handful of languages. And then, they mostly offer those languages which have many speakers, i.e. world languages like English, Spanish, French, perhaps Chinese. Schools still work with national ideologies and build up linguistic hierarchies, favouring more prestigious and powerful languages (Auer/Wei 2007, 5/6). However, there are schools which encourage multilingualism by giving lessons like geography or history in languages other than the official language of the respective region and there are even bilingual nursery schools. Nowadays, one has dismal prospects on the labour market if one is not able to speak at least two languages. Parents are getting more and more conscious about the necessity for their children to speak more than one language.<br />
<br />
<br />
* Auer, Peter/Wei, Li (2007). “Introduction.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-8. <br />
* Crystal, David (2007). “Multilingualism.” In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. 362-365. <br />
* Edwards, John (1995). Multilingualism. London, New York et al.: Penguin Books.<br />
* Edwards, John (2007). “Societal Multilingualism. Reality, Recognition and Response.” In: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Ed. by Peter Auer, Li <br />
* Wei. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 447-467.<br />
* Kecskés, I (2006). “Multilingualism. Pragmatic Aspects.” In: Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Ed. by Keith Brown. 2nd ed. Vol. 8. Oxford et al.: Elsevier Ltd. 371-375. <br />
* Matras, Yaron (2009). Language Contact. Cambridge, New York et al: Cambridge University Press.<br />
* Matthews, P. H. (1997). “Multilingual.” In: Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford, New York et al.: Oxford University Press. 235.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Performative&diff=10483Performative2009-12-17T10:33:44Z<p>Volker gast: /* Problems with Performatives */ This article is based on a term paper by Katrin Posselt</p>
<hr />
<div>The term '''"Performative"''' was introduced by [[John Langshaw Austin]] (1911 - 1960) in his philosophical lectures ''How to do things with words'' (1962), which was published two years after his death. In the context of Austin's theory of '''[[speech act]]s''' "performative" was applied to those utterances which are used to ''perform'' an act instead of describing it. Performative utterances thus stand in opposition to '''[[constative]]''' utterances, which are statements of facts.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<br />
==John L. Austin and his Theory of Speech Acts==<br />
Language is not only used to describe the world. In his William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955 (titled: ''How to do things with words''), Austin criticizes the view that the main purpose of sentences would be to state facts or to describe some state of affairs as either true or false. He argues against {{Wikipedia|logical positivism}}, which retains the view that the only meaningful statements are those that are verifiable (cf. Austin 1976: 2). Instead, Austin claims that such truth-evaluable sentences only constitute one type of utterance, pointing out that there are other types of utterances which are neither true nor false, but nonetheless meaningful. He calls this second type of utterance '''"performative"'''. Performatives are used to carry out an action. In that they differ from other types of declarative sentences (constatives) which only describe the world (constatives) in systematic ways. On the syntactic level, however, both performatives and constatives take the grammatical form of declarative sentences. Austin revises his theory considerably in the course of his lectures and eventually replaces the dichotomy ‘performative’ vs. ‘constative’ with a more general theory of speech acts which regards every utterance as a type of action. This theory of speech acts is later elaborated by Austin’s student [[John R. Searle]]. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Constatives===<br />
<br />
Constative utterances describe states of affairs which are either true or false. They are utterances which describe the world and in so doing ascertain or state something. Constatives mostly (though not necessarily) have the form of declarative sentences, they refer to the act of saying something, and, as mentioned above, they are truth-evaluable or at least purport to describe reality (cf. Petrey 1990:4).<br />
<br />
:;Examples of Constatives:<br />
:#Snow is white. (true)<br />
:#Snow is red. (false)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Performatives===<br />
<br />
Performative utterances often take the form of declarative sentences with which the speaker performs the action denoted by some performative verb (e.g. promise, declare etc.). In so doing, the speaker does not describe the world but changes it. <br />
Austin claims about performatives that<br />
: “they do not ‘describe’ or ‘report’ or constate anything at all, are not ‘true or false’; and the uttering of the sentence is, or is a part of, the doing of an action, which again would not normally be described as, or as ‘just’, saying something” (Austin 1976:5).<br />
<br />
:;Example <br />
:By uttering (i) the [[speaker]] actually makes an apology, he does not describe himself apologizing for his behaviour.<br />
<br />
:: ( i ) I apologize for my behaviour<br />
<br />
This distinguishes performatives from constatives which are used to make a true or false statement. Performatives do not have [[truth condition]]s but [[felicity condition]]s. <br />
<br />
==== Performative Verbs====<br />
<br />
The type of [[verb]]s used to make performative utterances are called performatives or performative verbs. Examples are: promise, name, bet, agree, swear, declare, order, predict, warn, insist, declare or refuse. The propositional content of the utterance functions as a complement of the performative verb. <br />
Characteristics of performative verbs are:<br />
# Performative verbs are verbs that describe actions carried out by speakers.<br />
#They are used in 1st person singular, simple present, indicative, active.<br />
#They can be combined with hereby (cf. Bublitz 2009:75f).<br />
<br />
<br />
Austin (1976:5) provides the following examples of performatives in his work:<br />
*a) “‘I do (sc. Take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife)’ – as uttered in the course of the marriage ceremony.”<br />
*b) “‘I name this ship the Queen Elisabeth’ – as uttered when smashing the bottle against the stem.”<br />
*c) “‘I give and bequeath my watch to my brother’ – as occurring in a will.”<br />
*d) “‘I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow.’”<br />
<br />
<br />
====Explicit Performatives and Primary Utterances====<br />
Due to the fact that the distinction between performatives and constatives is questionable in several ways, Austin further distinguishes between explicit performatives and primary utterances. <br />
:;Examples:<br />
<br />
:#“primary utterance: ‘I shall be there.’<br />
:#explicit performative: ‘I promise that I shall be there.’” (Austin 1976:69).<br />
<br />
The first example does not make use of a performative verb, whereas the second does. Still, both examples have similar implications, i.e. they both are promises, but only in the second example the promise is made explicit. At this point, Austin recognizes that an utterance can also be performative without including a performative verb. For example, "I salute you" is an act of greeting just as "Salaam."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Felicity Conditions==<br />
<br />
In his second lecture “Conditions for happy performatives” (1976:12-24), Austin identifies a set of rules which govern the felicitous or ‘successful’ use of performative utterances. These ‘felicity conditions’ apply especially to performatives associated with specific rituals or other types of formal events (cf. Thomas 1997:37). According to Austin (1976: 14f), the following conditions must be met for a performative sentence to be successful:<br />
<br />
<br />
*A.1 “There must exist an accepted conventional procedure having a certain conventional effect, that procedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain persons in certain circumstances, and further,<br />
*A.2 the particular persons and circumstances in a given case must be appropriate for the invocation of the particular procedure invoked.<br />
*B.1 The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and<br />
*B.2 Completely.<br />
*C.1 Where, as often, the procedure is designed for use by persons having certain thoughts or feelings, or for the inauguration of certain consequential conduct on the part of any participant, then a person participating in and so invoking the procedure must in fact have those thoughts of feelings, and the participants must intend so to conduct themselves, and further<br />
*C.2 must actually so conduct themselves subsequently.” (Austin 1976: 14f)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Misfires===<br />
<br />
The conditions under A and B are essential to the first group of infelicities which Austin calls '''“Misfires.”''' (Austin: 1976: 16) Not observing these rules makes the act invalid, so that it does not take effect. For example, if a husband says to his wife ‘I divorce you’, this is an infelicitous speech act because one cannot get divorced by oneself, so the utterance does not have a conventional effect. Another example occurs if speaker A says: ‘I bet you sixpence’ but speaker B doesn’t say ‘I take you on.’ <br />
<br />
<br />
===Abuses===<br />
<br />
The conditions listed under C – when violated – make the professed act an abuse of the procedure. Austin states that such performances are not void but '''“unhappy.”''' (Austin 1976: 15, 43) For example, when the speaker says "I congratulate you", although the speaker does not have the requisite feelings. (Austin 1976: 41)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Problems with Performatives==<br />
<br />
Austin modified his theory during his lectures considerably. At the end of his lectures, he replaces his performative/constative distinction with a more general theory of speech acts, stating that "the traditional 'statement' is an abstraction, an ideal" (Austin 1962: 148). Performative verbs as criteria for classifying speech acts are replaced by types of illocutionary force which are associated with an utterance. The notion of ‘performative’, which was based on the performative/constative distinction, has thus been replaced with more general families of related and overlapping speech-acts (Austin 1962: 150). Austin distinguishes five general classes of utterances which are classified according to their illocutionary force:<br />
<br />
#Verdictives (used to judge from something, examples: estimate, reckoning, appraisal)<br />
#Exercitives (used to exercise powers, rights or influence. Examples: appointing, voting, ordering)<br />
#Commissives (used to commit yourself to doing sth. example: promising)<br />
#Behabitives (used to express attitudes or social behaviour towards someone. examples: Congratulating, challenging)<br />
#Expositives (make plain how we are using words. Example: 'I illustrate') <br />
::::::::::::::::(types 1-5: cf. Austin 1976: 151ff)<br />
<br />
<br />
Even though the ‘performative-constative’ dichotomy was given up, Austin’s theory has had great influence on modern linguistics, as his writing is accessible and his work represents a consistent line of thoughts, even though it has often been modified (cf. Thomas1997:27).<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Performative&lemmacode=390 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
<br />
[http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/performativeverbterm.htm Performative Verbs on About.Grammar.com]<br />
<br />
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/ <br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|logical positivism}} <br />
<br />
[[John R. Searle]]<br />
<br />
[[John_Langshaw_Austin]] <br />
<br />
[[Speech act]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Austin, J.L.(1962) ''How to Do Things with Words,'' Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
:* most references on this site have been taken from the following edition: Austin, J.L. (1976) ''How to do things with words''. Oxford et.al.: Oxford University Press. (occasionally page numbers might be different in both editions)<br />
<br />
*Bublitz, Wolfram.(2009) ''Englische Pragmatik – Eine Einführung''. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.<br />
<br />
*Petrey, Sandy.(1990) ''Speech Acts and Literary Theory''. New York et.al. Routledge.<br />
<br />
*Thomas, Jenny.(1997) ''Meaning in Interaction – An Introduction to Pragmatics'', London et.al.:Longman.<br />
<br />
* Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet. (1990) ''Meaning and grammar,'' MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Speech act theory]]<br />
[[Category: Pragmatics]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Interference&diff=10355Interference2009-10-22T06:57:40Z<p>Volker gast: /* Semantic interference */</p>
<hr />
<div>===Definition===<br />
In research on [[second language acquisition]] and [[language contact]], the term '''interference''' refers to the influence of one language (or variety) on another in the speech of [[bilingual]]s who use both languages.<br />
<br />
:''"Those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language, i.e. as a result of language contact, will be referred to as INTERFERENCE phenomena."'' (Weinreich 1953:1)<br />
<br />
Interference can take place at all levels of the linguistic system, i.e. in [[phonology]], [[morphology]], [[syntax]], [[semantics]], [[pragmatics]], and the [[lexicon]].<br />
<br />
===Comments===<br />
The influence of one language on another in the speech of bilinguals is relevant both to the field of [[second language acquisition]] (where the interference from the learner's [[native language]] is studied) and to the field of [[historical linguistics]] (where the effects of interference on language change are studied).<br />
<br />
In the context of [[second language acquisition]], interference may lead to either [[negative transfer]] (transfer which results in non-target-like use of L2) or [[positive transfer]] (transfer resulting in target-like use of L2) (cf. Ellis, Rod. 1998. ''Second Language Acquisition''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 51, p. 140). '''Interference''' is mostly (and sometimes exclusively) used for instances of [[negative transfer]], and the two terms are often regarded as synonyms (cf. Ellis, Rod. 1997. ''The Study of Second Language Acquisition''. 5th, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, p. 302). Recently, many researchers investigating [[second language acquisition]] have observed that '''interference''' carries a negative connotation and have therefore increasingly tended to avoid it, preferring the term [[transfer]] instead.<br />
<br />
Historical linguists have generally focused on languages rather than speakers, and have used the term ''interference'' in a different, historical sense. However, since the term [[contact-induced change]] has now widely established itself, '''interference''' is no longer common in historical linguistics.<br />
<br />
There is a verb that is derivationally related to the noun '''interference''', i.e. (''to'') ''interfere'' (e.g. "The phonology of the speaker's native language interferes with the use of the second language").<br />
<br />
===Examples===<br />
====Phonological interference====<br />
Phonological interference is a common type of interference, its most prominent manifestation being a “foreign accent”.<br />
<br />
Transfer from Dutch to English (Received Pronunciation): (cf. Swan, Michael and Smith, Bernard. 1988. ''Learner English – A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 4).<br />
<br />
Dutch: Vinger ({{IPA|/ˈv̥ɪŋəʀ/}})<br />
<br />
Incorrect learner English: Finger (*{{IPA|/ˈfɪŋə/}})<br />
<br />
Correct R.P.: Finger ({{IPA|/ˈfɪŋgə/}})<br />
<br />
Words including the combination “''ng''” may be pronounced incorrectly in English, since they are realized as {{IPA|[ŋ]}}in Dutch. In that case, the {{IPA|[ŋ]}}pronounced by a native speaker of Dutch would be transferred to the learner language English, where {{IPA|[ŋɡ]}}would be the correct pronunciation. Therefore, the realization of “''ng''” as {{IPA|[ŋ]}}in the native language would interfere with the pronunciation of the learner language, e.g. the “''ng''”-combination in ''Finger'': Dutch: {{IPA|[ŋ]}}vs. Received Pronunciation: {{IPA|[ŋɡ]}}.<br />
<br />
====Syntactic interference====<br />
<br />
Transfer from German to English (Received Pronunciation) (cf. König, Ekkehard and Gast, Volker. 2009. ''Understanding English-German Contrasts''. 2., neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, pp. 86f, p. 91 or {{cite web |url=http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2007/3054/ |title=Rothstein, Björn Michael. 2007. ''The Perfect Time Span: On the Present Perfect in German, Swedish and English''.}}):<br />
<br />
German: ''Gestern habe ich Ball gespielt''.<br />
<br />
Incorrect Learner English: *''I have played ball yesterday''.<br />
<br />
Correct Received Pronunciation: ''I played ball yesterday''.<br />
<br />
Since the German Perfekt (''habe gespielt'') is not used in the same way as the English Present Perfect, it may come to interference at the syntactic level (cf. the learner English-example). Speakers of German apply the Perfekt in similar contexts (here: a narrative use) as the German Imperfekt (~the German equivalent of the Past Tense), whereas this is different with the English Present Perfect and the English Past Tense. Here, reference to definite moments in the past requires the Past Tense.<br />
<br />
====Lexical interference====<br />
Transfer from English to German: cf. {{cite web |url=http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/med-magazine/August2007/46-ArabictoEngl.htm#3 |title=Bennoudi, Hanan. 2007. Lost in Translation: From Arabic to English and back again. ''MED Magazine'' 46.}}<br />
<br />
English: ''He wrote the letter on the blackboard''.<br />
<br />
Incorrect Learner German: ''Er schrieb den *Brief an die Tafel''.<br />
<br />
Correct German: ''Er schrieb den Buchstaben an die Tafel''.<br />
<br />
In English, ''letter'' carries various meanings. This example illustrates especially the following ones: i) the ''letter'' that one can mail by post and ii) the ''letter'' as an element of the alphabet. Since each of the two meanings has its particular counterpart in German, interference at a lexical level could arise. Therefore, a strict word-by-word translation (i.e. with the help of a dictionary) could result in the incorrect choice of ''Brief'' although the context of the English ''letter'' implied the German ''Buchstabe''.<br />
<br />
===Polysemy===<br />
''Interference'' can refer to the influence on one language on another in speech (as in second language acquisition research), or to the influence of one language on another in language change (as in historical linguistic research) (see [[interference (i.e. contact-induced change)]]). In some contexts, the term may be used in a vague sense that is neutral between the two readings.<br />
<br />
===Origin===<br />
The term became well-known through Weinreich's influential (1953) book ''Languages in contact''. Weinreich used the term in both senses (interference in speech and interference in language change).<br />
<br />
Since its introduction (cf. {{cite web |url=http://books.google.de/books?id=7kVF-RVuKH4C&pg=RA1-PA802&lpg=RA1-PA802&dq=%22interference+introduced+by+weinreich%22&source=bl&ots=87VJ7xCRr7&sig=ssm9nvbs_CMv2Niy2VOgR7CXSX4&hl=de&ei=6BqqSv3uNsmO_AbC-dG0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false |title= Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert and Mattheier, Klaus J. 2004. ''Sociolinguistics – An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society''. 2., vollständig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 800ff.}}) into linguistics by Uriel Weinreich in 1953, the term '''interference''' has undergone some changes (cf. Ringbom, Håkan. 2007. ''Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning''. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 32f). Weinreich used the term to refer to any type of pattern transfer (from L1 to L2 and from L2 to L1) (cf. Nemser, William. 1991. Language Contact and Foreign Language Acquisition. In: Ivir, Vladimir. 1991. ''Languages in Contact and Contrast: Essays in Contact Linguistics''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 346). Cf. Odlin, Terence. 1989. ''Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, p. 12, p. 24. In specific fields of [[second language acquisition]], the term came to be used in a narrower sense, i.e. (i) only for transfer from L1 to L2 and (ii) only for [[negative transfer]].<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
*Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert and Mattheier, Klaus J. 2004. [http://books.google.de/books?id=7kVF-RVuKH4C&pg=RA1-PA802&lpg=RA1-PA802&dq=%22interference+introduced+by+weinreich%22&source=bl&ots=87VJ7xCRr7&sig=ssm9nvbs_CMv2Niy2VOgR7CXSX4&hl=de&ei=6BqqSv3uNsmO_AbC-dG0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Sociolinguistics – An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society'']. 2., vollständig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br />
*Bennoudi, Hanan. 2007. [http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/med-magazine/August2007/46-ArabictoEngl.htm#3 Lost in Translation: From Arabic to English and back again]. ''MED Magazine'' 46.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1986. ''Understanding Second Language Acquisition''. 2nd, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1997. ''The Study of Second Language Acquisition''. 5th, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1998. ''Second Language Acquisition''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
*Jarvis, Scott and Pavlenko, Aneta. 2008. ''Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition''. New York: Routledge.<br />
*Kerr, J. 1988. [http://www.iier.org.au/qjer/qr4/kerr.html A study of the identification of instances of language transfer and interference in samples of writing and speech]. ''Queensland Researcher'' 4(1). 4-22.<br />
* König, Ekkehard and Gast, Volker. 2009. Understanding English-German Contrasts. 2., neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.<br />
*Nemser, William. 1991. Language Contact and Foreign Language Acquisition. In: Ivir, Vladimir. 1991. ''Languages in Contact and Contrast: Essays in Contact Linguistics''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 345-364.<br />
*Odlin, Terence. 1989. ''Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.<br />
*Ringbom, Håkan. 2007. ''Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning''. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.<br />
*Ritchie, William C. 1996. ''Handbook of Second Language Acquisition''. San Diego: Academic Press.<br />
*Rothstein, Björn Michael. 2007. [http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2007/3054/ ''The Perfect Time Span: On the Present Perfect in German, Swedish and English''].<br />
*Saville-Troike, Muriel. 2006. ''Introducing Second Language Acquisition''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.<br />
*Schröder, Ulrike. 2007. [http://www.revistamatices.unal.edu.co/pdfs/Zweitspracherwerb_Tendenzen__Ulrike_S.pdf ''Holistische und integrative Tendenzen in der Zweitspracherwerbsforschung''].<br />
*Sharwood Smith, Michael. 1996. Crosslinguistic Influence with Special Reference to the Acquisition of Grammar. In: Jordens, Peter. 1996. ''Investigating Second Language Acquisition''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 71-86.<br />
*Swan, Michael and Smith, Bernard. 1988. ''Learner English – A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
*Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. ''Languages in contact.'' New York.<br />
*Wendt, Michael. 1993. ''Die drei Dimensionen der Lernersprache''. Tübingen: Narr.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Other languages===<br />
German [[Interferenz]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:En]] <br />
[[Category:Bilingualism]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Interference&diff=10354Interference2009-10-22T06:56:56Z<p>Volker gast: /* Syntactic interference */</p>
<hr />
<div>===Definition===<br />
In research on [[second language acquisition]] and [[language contact]], the term '''interference''' refers to the influence of one language (or variety) on another in the speech of [[bilingual]]s who use both languages.<br />
<br />
:''"Those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language, i.e. as a result of language contact, will be referred to as INTERFERENCE phenomena."'' (Weinreich 1953:1)<br />
<br />
Interference can take place at all levels of the linguistic system, i.e. in [[phonology]], [[morphology]], [[syntax]], [[semantics]], [[pragmatics]], and the [[lexicon]].<br />
<br />
===Comments===<br />
The influence of one language on another in the speech of bilinguals is relevant both to the field of [[second language acquisition]] (where the interference from the learner's [[native language]] is studied) and to the field of [[historical linguistics]] (where the effects of interference on language change are studied).<br />
<br />
In the context of [[second language acquisition]], interference may lead to either [[negative transfer]] (transfer which results in non-target-like use of L2) or [[positive transfer]] (transfer resulting in target-like use of L2) (cf. Ellis, Rod. 1998. ''Second Language Acquisition''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 51, p. 140). '''Interference''' is mostly (and sometimes exclusively) used for instances of [[negative transfer]], and the two terms are often regarded as synonyms (cf. Ellis, Rod. 1997. ''The Study of Second Language Acquisition''. 5th, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, p. 302). Recently, many researchers investigating [[second language acquisition]] have observed that '''interference''' carries a negative connotation and have therefore increasingly tended to avoid it, preferring the term [[transfer]] instead.<br />
<br />
Historical linguists have generally focused on languages rather than speakers, and have used the term ''interference'' in a different, historical sense. However, since the term [[contact-induced change]] has now widely established itself, '''interference''' is no longer common in historical linguistics.<br />
<br />
There is a verb that is derivationally related to the noun '''interference''', i.e. (''to'') ''interfere'' (e.g. "The phonology of the speaker's native language interferes with the use of the second language").<br />
<br />
===Examples===<br />
====Phonological interference====<br />
Phonological interference is a common type of interference, its most prominent manifestation being a “foreign accent”.<br />
<br />
Transfer from Dutch to English (Received Pronunciation): (cf. Swan, Michael and Smith, Bernard. 1988. ''Learner English – A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 4).<br />
<br />
Dutch: Vinger ({{IPA|/ˈv̥ɪŋəʀ/}})<br />
<br />
Incorrect learner English: Finger (*{{IPA|/ˈfɪŋə/}})<br />
<br />
Correct R.P.: Finger ({{IPA|/ˈfɪŋgə/}})<br />
<br />
Words including the combination “''ng''” may be pronounced incorrectly in English, since they are realized as {{IPA|[ŋ]}}in Dutch. In that case, the {{IPA|[ŋ]}}pronounced by a native speaker of Dutch would be transferred to the learner language English, where {{IPA|[ŋɡ]}}would be the correct pronunciation. Therefore, the realization of “''ng''” as {{IPA|[ŋ]}}in the native language would interfere with the pronunciation of the learner language, e.g. the “''ng''”-combination in ''Finger'': Dutch: {{IPA|[ŋ]}}vs. Received Pronunciation: {{IPA|[ŋɡ]}}.<br />
<br />
====Syntactic interference====<br />
<br />
Transfer from German to English (Received Pronunciation) (cf. König, Ekkehard and Gast, Volker. 2009. ''Understanding English-German Contrasts''. 2., neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, pp. 86f, p. 91 or {{cite web |url=http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2007/3054/ |title=Rothstein, Björn Michael. 2007. ''The Perfect Time Span: On the Present Perfect in German, Swedish and English''.}}):<br />
<br />
German: ''Gestern habe ich Ball gespielt''.<br />
<br />
Incorrect Learner English: *''I have played ball yesterday''.<br />
<br />
Correct Received Pronunciation: ''I played ball yesterday''.<br />
<br />
Since the German Perfekt (''habe gespielt'') is not used in the same way as the English Present Perfect, it may come to interference at the syntactic level (cf. the learner English-example). Speakers of German apply the Perfekt in similar contexts (here: a narrative use) as the German Imperfekt (~the German equivalent of the Past Tense), whereas this is different with the English Present Perfect and the English Past Tense. Here, reference to definite moments in the past requires the Past Tense.<br />
<br />
====Semantic interference====<br />
Transfer from English to German: cf. {{cite web |url=http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/med-magazine/August2007/46-ArabictoEngl.htm#3 |title=Bennoudi, Hanan. 2007. Lost in Translation: From Arabic to English and back again. ''MED Magazine'' 46.}}<br />
<br />
English: ''He wrote the letter on the blackboard''.<br />
<br />
Incorrect Learner German: ''Er schrieb den *Brief an die Tafel''.<br />
<br />
Correct German: ''Er schrieb den Buchstaben an die Tafel''.<br />
<br />
In English, ''letter'' carries various meanings. This example illustrates especially the following ones: i) the ''letter'' that one can mail by post and ii) the ''letter'' as an element of the alphabet. Since each of the two meanings has its particular counterpart in German, interference at a semantic level could arise. Therefore, a strict word-by-word translation (i.e. with the help of a dictionary) could result in the incorrect choice of ''Brief'' although the context of the English ''letter'' implied the German ''Buchstabe''.<br />
<br />
===Polysemy===<br />
''Interference'' can refer to the influence on one language on another in speech (as in second language acquisition research), or to the influence of one language on another in language change (as in historical linguistic research) (see [[interference (i.e. contact-induced change)]]). In some contexts, the term may be used in a vague sense that is neutral between the two readings.<br />
<br />
===Origin===<br />
The term became well-known through Weinreich's influential (1953) book ''Languages in contact''. Weinreich used the term in both senses (interference in speech and interference in language change).<br />
<br />
Since its introduction (cf. {{cite web |url=http://books.google.de/books?id=7kVF-RVuKH4C&pg=RA1-PA802&lpg=RA1-PA802&dq=%22interference+introduced+by+weinreich%22&source=bl&ots=87VJ7xCRr7&sig=ssm9nvbs_CMv2Niy2VOgR7CXSX4&hl=de&ei=6BqqSv3uNsmO_AbC-dG0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false |title= Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert and Mattheier, Klaus J. 2004. ''Sociolinguistics – An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society''. 2., vollständig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 800ff.}}) into linguistics by Uriel Weinreich in 1953, the term '''interference''' has undergone some changes (cf. Ringbom, Håkan. 2007. ''Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning''. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 32f). Weinreich used the term to refer to any type of pattern transfer (from L1 to L2 and from L2 to L1) (cf. Nemser, William. 1991. Language Contact and Foreign Language Acquisition. In: Ivir, Vladimir. 1991. ''Languages in Contact and Contrast: Essays in Contact Linguistics''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 346). Cf. Odlin, Terence. 1989. ''Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, p. 12, p. 24. In specific fields of [[second language acquisition]], the term came to be used in a narrower sense, i.e. (i) only for transfer from L1 to L2 and (ii) only for [[negative transfer]].<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
*Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert and Mattheier, Klaus J. 2004. [http://books.google.de/books?id=7kVF-RVuKH4C&pg=RA1-PA802&lpg=RA1-PA802&dq=%22interference+introduced+by+weinreich%22&source=bl&ots=87VJ7xCRr7&sig=ssm9nvbs_CMv2Niy2VOgR7CXSX4&hl=de&ei=6BqqSv3uNsmO_AbC-dG0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Sociolinguistics – An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society'']. 2., vollständig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br />
*Bennoudi, Hanan. 2007. [http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/med-magazine/August2007/46-ArabictoEngl.htm#3 Lost in Translation: From Arabic to English and back again]. ''MED Magazine'' 46.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1986. ''Understanding Second Language Acquisition''. 2nd, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1997. ''The Study of Second Language Acquisition''. 5th, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1998. ''Second Language Acquisition''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
*Jarvis, Scott and Pavlenko, Aneta. 2008. ''Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition''. New York: Routledge.<br />
*Kerr, J. 1988. [http://www.iier.org.au/qjer/qr4/kerr.html A study of the identification of instances of language transfer and interference in samples of writing and speech]. ''Queensland Researcher'' 4(1). 4-22.<br />
* König, Ekkehard and Gast, Volker. 2009. Understanding English-German Contrasts. 2., neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.<br />
*Nemser, William. 1991. Language Contact and Foreign Language Acquisition. In: Ivir, Vladimir. 1991. ''Languages in Contact and Contrast: Essays in Contact Linguistics''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 345-364.<br />
*Odlin, Terence. 1989. ''Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.<br />
*Ringbom, Håkan. 2007. ''Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning''. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.<br />
*Ritchie, William C. 1996. ''Handbook of Second Language Acquisition''. San Diego: Academic Press.<br />
*Rothstein, Björn Michael. 2007. [http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2007/3054/ ''The Perfect Time Span: On the Present Perfect in German, Swedish and English''].<br />
*Saville-Troike, Muriel. 2006. ''Introducing Second Language Acquisition''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.<br />
*Schröder, Ulrike. 2007. [http://www.revistamatices.unal.edu.co/pdfs/Zweitspracherwerb_Tendenzen__Ulrike_S.pdf ''Holistische und integrative Tendenzen in der Zweitspracherwerbsforschung''].<br />
*Sharwood Smith, Michael. 1996. Crosslinguistic Influence with Special Reference to the Acquisition of Grammar. In: Jordens, Peter. 1996. ''Investigating Second Language Acquisition''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 71-86.<br />
*Swan, Michael and Smith, Bernard. 1988. ''Learner English – A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
*Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. ''Languages in contact.'' New York.<br />
*Wendt, Michael. 1993. ''Die drei Dimensionen der Lernersprache''. Tübingen: Narr.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Other languages===<br />
German [[Interferenz]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:En]] <br />
[[Category:Bilingualism]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Interference&diff=10353Interference2009-10-22T06:56:16Z<p>Volker gast: /* Phonological interference */</p>
<hr />
<div>===Definition===<br />
In research on [[second language acquisition]] and [[language contact]], the term '''interference''' refers to the influence of one language (or variety) on another in the speech of [[bilingual]]s who use both languages.<br />
<br />
:''"Those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language, i.e. as a result of language contact, will be referred to as INTERFERENCE phenomena."'' (Weinreich 1953:1)<br />
<br />
Interference can take place at all levels of the linguistic system, i.e. in [[phonology]], [[morphology]], [[syntax]], [[semantics]], [[pragmatics]], and the [[lexicon]].<br />
<br />
===Comments===<br />
The influence of one language on another in the speech of bilinguals is relevant both to the field of [[second language acquisition]] (where the interference from the learner's [[native language]] is studied) and to the field of [[historical linguistics]] (where the effects of interference on language change are studied).<br />
<br />
In the context of [[second language acquisition]], interference may lead to either [[negative transfer]] (transfer which results in non-target-like use of L2) or [[positive transfer]] (transfer resulting in target-like use of L2) (cf. Ellis, Rod. 1998. ''Second Language Acquisition''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 51, p. 140). '''Interference''' is mostly (and sometimes exclusively) used for instances of [[negative transfer]], and the two terms are often regarded as synonyms (cf. Ellis, Rod. 1997. ''The Study of Second Language Acquisition''. 5th, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, p. 302). Recently, many researchers investigating [[second language acquisition]] have observed that '''interference''' carries a negative connotation and have therefore increasingly tended to avoid it, preferring the term [[transfer]] instead.<br />
<br />
Historical linguists have generally focused on languages rather than speakers, and have used the term ''interference'' in a different, historical sense. However, since the term [[contact-induced change]] has now widely established itself, '''interference''' is no longer common in historical linguistics.<br />
<br />
There is a verb that is derivationally related to the noun '''interference''', i.e. (''to'') ''interfere'' (e.g. "The phonology of the speaker's native language interferes with the use of the second language").<br />
<br />
===Examples===<br />
====Phonological interference====<br />
Phonological interference is a common type of interference, its most prominent manifestation being a “foreign accent”.<br />
<br />
Transfer from Dutch to English (Received Pronunciation): (cf. Swan, Michael and Smith, Bernard. 1988. ''Learner English – A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 4).<br />
<br />
Dutch: Vinger ({{IPA|/ˈv̥ɪŋəʀ/}})<br />
<br />
Incorrect learner English: Finger (*{{IPA|/ˈfɪŋə/}})<br />
<br />
Correct R.P.: Finger ({{IPA|/ˈfɪŋgə/}})<br />
<br />
Words including the combination “''ng''” may be pronounced incorrectly in English, since they are realized as {{IPA|[ŋ]}}in Dutch. In that case, the {{IPA|[ŋ]}}pronounced by a native speaker of Dutch would be transferred to the learner language English, where {{IPA|[ŋɡ]}}would be the correct pronunciation. Therefore, the realization of “''ng''” as {{IPA|[ŋ]}}in the native language would interfere with the pronunciation of the learner language, e.g. the “''ng''”-combination in ''Finger'': Dutch: {{IPA|[ŋ]}}vs. Received Pronunciation: {{IPA|[ŋɡ]}}.<br />
<br />
====Syntactic interference====<br />
<br />
Transfer from German to English (Received Pronunciation) (cf. König, Ekkehard and Gast, Volker. 2009. ''Understanding English-German Contrasts''. 2., neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, pp. 86f, p. 91 or {{cite web |url=http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2007/3054/ |title=Rothstein, Björn Michael. 2007. ''The Perfect Time Span: On the Present Perfect in German, Swedish and English''.}}):<br />
<br />
German: ''Gestern habe ich Ball gespielt''.<br />
<br />
Incorrect Learner English: *''I have played ball yesterday''.<br />
<br />
Correct Received Pronunciation: ''I played ball yesterday''.<br />
<br />
Since the German Perfekt (''habe gespielt'') is not used in the same way as the English Present Perfect, it may come to interference at the syntactic level (cf. the learner English-example). Speakers of German apply the Perfekt in similar contexts (here: a narrative use) as the German Imperfekt (~the German equivalent of the Past Tense), whereas this is different with the English Present Perfect and the English Past Tense. Here, references to definite moments in the past require the Past Tense.<br />
<br />
====Semantic interference====<br />
Transfer from English to German: cf. {{cite web |url=http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/med-magazine/August2007/46-ArabictoEngl.htm#3 |title=Bennoudi, Hanan. 2007. Lost in Translation: From Arabic to English and back again. ''MED Magazine'' 46.}}<br />
<br />
English: ''He wrote the letter on the blackboard''.<br />
<br />
Incorrect Learner German: ''Er schrieb den *Brief an die Tafel''.<br />
<br />
Correct German: ''Er schrieb den Buchstaben an die Tafel''.<br />
<br />
In English, ''letter'' carries various meanings. This example illustrates especially the following ones: i) the ''letter'' that one can mail by post and ii) the ''letter'' as an element of the alphabet. Since each of the two meanings has its particular counterpart in German, interference at a semantic level could arise. Therefore, a strict word-by-word translation (i.e. with the help of a dictionary) could result in the incorrect choice of ''Brief'' although the context of the English ''letter'' implied the German ''Buchstabe''.<br />
<br />
===Polysemy===<br />
''Interference'' can refer to the influence on one language on another in speech (as in second language acquisition research), or to the influence of one language on another in language change (as in historical linguistic research) (see [[interference (i.e. contact-induced change)]]). In some contexts, the term may be used in a vague sense that is neutral between the two readings.<br />
<br />
===Origin===<br />
The term became well-known through Weinreich's influential (1953) book ''Languages in contact''. Weinreich used the term in both senses (interference in speech and interference in language change).<br />
<br />
Since its introduction (cf. {{cite web |url=http://books.google.de/books?id=7kVF-RVuKH4C&pg=RA1-PA802&lpg=RA1-PA802&dq=%22interference+introduced+by+weinreich%22&source=bl&ots=87VJ7xCRr7&sig=ssm9nvbs_CMv2Niy2VOgR7CXSX4&hl=de&ei=6BqqSv3uNsmO_AbC-dG0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false |title= Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert and Mattheier, Klaus J. 2004. ''Sociolinguistics – An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society''. 2., vollständig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 800ff.}}) into linguistics by Uriel Weinreich in 1953, the term '''interference''' has undergone some changes (cf. Ringbom, Håkan. 2007. ''Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning''. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 32f). Weinreich used the term to refer to any type of pattern transfer (from L1 to L2 and from L2 to L1) (cf. Nemser, William. 1991. Language Contact and Foreign Language Acquisition. In: Ivir, Vladimir. 1991. ''Languages in Contact and Contrast: Essays in Contact Linguistics''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 346). Cf. Odlin, Terence. 1989. ''Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, p. 12, p. 24. In specific fields of [[second language acquisition]], the term came to be used in a narrower sense, i.e. (i) only for transfer from L1 to L2 and (ii) only for [[negative transfer]].<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
*Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert and Mattheier, Klaus J. 2004. [http://books.google.de/books?id=7kVF-RVuKH4C&pg=RA1-PA802&lpg=RA1-PA802&dq=%22interference+introduced+by+weinreich%22&source=bl&ots=87VJ7xCRr7&sig=ssm9nvbs_CMv2Niy2VOgR7CXSX4&hl=de&ei=6BqqSv3uNsmO_AbC-dG0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Sociolinguistics – An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society'']. 2., vollständig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br />
*Bennoudi, Hanan. 2007. [http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/med-magazine/August2007/46-ArabictoEngl.htm#3 Lost in Translation: From Arabic to English and back again]. ''MED Magazine'' 46.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1986. ''Understanding Second Language Acquisition''. 2nd, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1997. ''The Study of Second Language Acquisition''. 5th, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1998. ''Second Language Acquisition''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
*Jarvis, Scott and Pavlenko, Aneta. 2008. ''Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition''. New York: Routledge.<br />
*Kerr, J. 1988. [http://www.iier.org.au/qjer/qr4/kerr.html A study of the identification of instances of language transfer and interference in samples of writing and speech]. ''Queensland Researcher'' 4(1). 4-22.<br />
* König, Ekkehard and Gast, Volker. 2009. Understanding English-German Contrasts. 2., neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.<br />
*Nemser, William. 1991. Language Contact and Foreign Language Acquisition. In: Ivir, Vladimir. 1991. ''Languages in Contact and Contrast: Essays in Contact Linguistics''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 345-364.<br />
*Odlin, Terence. 1989. ''Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.<br />
*Ringbom, Håkan. 2007. ''Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning''. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.<br />
*Ritchie, William C. 1996. ''Handbook of Second Language Acquisition''. San Diego: Academic Press.<br />
*Rothstein, Björn Michael. 2007. [http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2007/3054/ ''The Perfect Time Span: On the Present Perfect in German, Swedish and English''].<br />
*Saville-Troike, Muriel. 2006. ''Introducing Second Language Acquisition''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.<br />
*Schröder, Ulrike. 2007. [http://www.revistamatices.unal.edu.co/pdfs/Zweitspracherwerb_Tendenzen__Ulrike_S.pdf ''Holistische und integrative Tendenzen in der Zweitspracherwerbsforschung''].<br />
*Sharwood Smith, Michael. 1996. Crosslinguistic Influence with Special Reference to the Acquisition of Grammar. In: Jordens, Peter. 1996. ''Investigating Second Language Acquisition''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 71-86.<br />
*Swan, Michael and Smith, Bernard. 1988. ''Learner English – A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
*Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. ''Languages in contact.'' New York.<br />
*Wendt, Michael. 1993. ''Die drei Dimensionen der Lernersprache''. Tübingen: Narr.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Other languages===<br />
German [[Interferenz]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:En]] <br />
[[Category:Bilingualism]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Interference&diff=10352Interference2009-10-21T20:27:19Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>===Definition===<br />
In research on [[second language acquisition]] and [[language contact]], the term '''interference''' refers to the influence of one language (or variety) on another in the speech of [[bilingual]]s who use both languages.<br />
<br />
:''"Those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language, i.e. as a result of language contact, will be referred to as INTERFERENCE phenomena."'' (Weinreich 1953:1)<br />
<br />
Interference can take place at all levels of the linguistic system, i.e. in [[phonology]], [[morphology]], [[syntax]], [[semantics]], [[pragmatics]], and the [[lexicon]].<br />
<br />
===Comments===<br />
The influence of one language on another in the speech of bilinguals is relevant both to the field of [[second language acquisition]] (where the interference from the learner's [[native language]] is studied) and to the field of [[historical linguistics]] (where the effects of interference on language change are studied).<br />
<br />
In the context of [[second language acquisition]], interference may lead to either [[negative transfer]] (transfer which results in non-target-like use of L2) or [[positive transfer]] (transfer resulting in target-like use of L2) (cf. Ellis, Rod. 1998. ''Second Language Acquisition''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 51, p. 140). '''Interference''' is mostly (and sometimes exclusively) used for instances of [[negative transfer]], and the two terms are often regarded as synonyms (cf. Ellis, Rod. 1997. ''The Study of Second Language Acquisition''. 5th, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, p. 302). Recently, many researchers investigating [[second language acquisition]] have observed that '''interference''' carries a negative connotation and have therefore increasingly tended to avoid it, preferring the term [[transfer]] instead.<br />
<br />
Historical linguists have generally focused on languages rather than speakers, and have used the term ''interference'' in a different, historical sense. However, since the term [[contact-induced change]] has now widely established itself, '''interference''' is no longer common in historical linguistics.<br />
<br />
There is a verb that is derivationally related to the noun '''interference''', i.e. (''to'') ''interfere'' (e.g. "The phonology of the speaker's native language interferes with the use of the second language").<br />
<br />
===Examples===<br />
====Phonological interference====<br />
Phonological interference is a common type of interference, its most prominent manifestation being a “foreign accent”.<br />
<br />
Transfer from Dutch to English (Received Pronunciation): (cf. Swan, Michael and Smith, Bernard. 1988. ''Learner English – A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 4).<br />
<br />
Dutch: Vinger ({{IPA|/ˈv̥ɪŋəʀ/}})<br />
<br />
Incorrect learner English: Finger (*{{IPA|/ˈfɪŋə/}})<br />
<br />
Correct R.P.: Finger ({{IPA|/ˈfɪŋgə/}})<br />
<br />
Words including the combination “''ng''” may be pronounced incorrectly in English, since they are realized as {{IPA|[ŋ]}}in Dutch. In that case, the {{IPA|[ŋ]}}pronounced by a native speaker of Dutch would be transferred to the learner language English, where {{IPA|[ŋɡ]}}would be the correct pronunciation. Therefore, the realization of “''ng''” as ({{IPA|[ŋ]}})in the native language would interfere with the pronunciation of the learner language, e.g. the “''ng''”-combination in ''Finger'': Dutch: {{IPA|[ŋ]}}vs. Received Pronunciation: {{IPA|[ŋɡ]}}.<br />
<br />
====Syntactic interference====<br />
<br />
Transfer from German to English (Received Pronunciation) (cf. König, Ekkehard and Gast, Volker. 2009. ''Understanding English-German Contrasts''. 2., neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, pp. 86f, p. 91 or {{cite web |url=http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2007/3054/ |title=Rothstein, Björn Michael. 2007. ''The Perfect Time Span: On the Present Perfect in German, Swedish and English''.}}):<br />
<br />
German: ''Gestern habe ich Ball gespielt''.<br />
<br />
Incorrect Learner English: *''I have played ball yesterday''.<br />
<br />
Correct Received Pronunciation: ''I played ball yesterday''.<br />
<br />
Since the German Perfekt (''habe gespielt'') is not used in the same way as the English Present Perfect, it may come to interference at the syntactic level (cf. the learner English-example). Speakers of German apply the Perfekt in similar contexts (here: a narrative use) as the German Imperfekt (~the German equivalent of the Past Tense), whereas this is different with the English Present Perfect and the English Past Tense. Here, references to definite moments in the past require the Past Tense.<br />
<br />
====Semantic interference====<br />
Transfer from English to German: cf. {{cite web |url=http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/med-magazine/August2007/46-ArabictoEngl.htm#3 |title=Bennoudi, Hanan. 2007. Lost in Translation: From Arabic to English and back again. ''MED Magazine'' 46.}}<br />
<br />
English: ''He wrote the letter on the blackboard''.<br />
<br />
Incorrect Learner German: ''Er schrieb den *Brief an die Tafel''.<br />
<br />
Correct German: ''Er schrieb den Buchstaben an die Tafel''.<br />
<br />
In English, ''letter'' carries various meanings. This example illustrates especially the following ones: i) the ''letter'' that one can mail by post and ii) the ''letter'' as an element of the alphabet. Since each of the two meanings has its particular counterpart in German, interference at a semantic level could arise. Therefore, a strict word-by-word translation (i.e. with the help of a dictionary) could result in the incorrect choice of ''Brief'' although the context of the English ''letter'' implied the German ''Buchstabe''.<br />
<br />
===Polysemy===<br />
''Interference'' can refer to the influence on one language on another in speech (as in second language acquisition research), or to the influence of one language on another in language change (as in historical linguistic research) (see [[interference (i.e. contact-induced change)]]). In some contexts, the term may be used in a vague sense that is neutral between the two readings.<br />
<br />
===Origin===<br />
The term became well-known through Weinreich's influential (1953) book ''Languages in contact''. Weinreich used the term in both senses (interference in speech and interference in language change).<br />
<br />
Since its introduction (cf. {{cite web |url=http://books.google.de/books?id=7kVF-RVuKH4C&pg=RA1-PA802&lpg=RA1-PA802&dq=%22interference+introduced+by+weinreich%22&source=bl&ots=87VJ7xCRr7&sig=ssm9nvbs_CMv2Niy2VOgR7CXSX4&hl=de&ei=6BqqSv3uNsmO_AbC-dG0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false |title= Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert and Mattheier, Klaus J. 2004. ''Sociolinguistics – An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society''. 2., vollständig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 800ff.}}) into linguistics by Uriel Weinreich in 1953, the term '''interference''' has undergone some changes (cf. Ringbom, Håkan. 2007. ''Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning''. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 32f). Weinreich used the term to refer to any type of pattern transfer (from L1 to L2 and from L2 to L1) (cf. Nemser, William. 1991. Language Contact and Foreign Language Acquisition. In: Ivir, Vladimir. 1991. ''Languages in Contact and Contrast: Essays in Contact Linguistics''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 346). Cf. Odlin, Terence. 1989. ''Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, p. 12, p. 24. In specific fields of [[second language acquisition]], the term came to be used in a narrower sense, i.e. (i) only for transfer from L1 to L2 and (ii) only for [[negative transfer]].<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
*Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert and Mattheier, Klaus J. 2004. [http://books.google.de/books?id=7kVF-RVuKH4C&pg=RA1-PA802&lpg=RA1-PA802&dq=%22interference+introduced+by+weinreich%22&source=bl&ots=87VJ7xCRr7&sig=ssm9nvbs_CMv2Niy2VOgR7CXSX4&hl=de&ei=6BqqSv3uNsmO_AbC-dG0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Sociolinguistics – An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society'']. 2., vollständig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br />
*Bennoudi, Hanan. 2007. [http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/med-magazine/August2007/46-ArabictoEngl.htm#3 Lost in Translation: From Arabic to English and back again]. ''MED Magazine'' 46.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1986. ''Understanding Second Language Acquisition''. 2nd, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1997. ''The Study of Second Language Acquisition''. 5th, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1998. ''Second Language Acquisition''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
*Jarvis, Scott and Pavlenko, Aneta. 2008. ''Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition''. New York: Routledge.<br />
*Kerr, J. 1988. [http://www.iier.org.au/qjer/qr4/kerr.html A study of the identification of instances of language transfer and interference in samples of writing and speech]. ''Queensland Researcher'' 4(1). 4-22.<br />
* König, Ekkehard and Gast, Volker. 2009. Understanding English-German Contrasts. 2., neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.<br />
*Nemser, William. 1991. Language Contact and Foreign Language Acquisition. In: Ivir, Vladimir. 1991. ''Languages in Contact and Contrast: Essays in Contact Linguistics''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 345-364.<br />
*Odlin, Terence. 1989. ''Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.<br />
*Ringbom, Håkan. 2007. ''Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning''. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.<br />
*Ritchie, William C. 1996. ''Handbook of Second Language Acquisition''. San Diego: Academic Press.<br />
*Rothstein, Björn Michael. 2007. [http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2007/3054/ ''The Perfect Time Span: On the Present Perfect in German, Swedish and English''].<br />
*Saville-Troike, Muriel. 2006. ''Introducing Second Language Acquisition''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.<br />
*Schröder, Ulrike. 2007. [http://www.revistamatices.unal.edu.co/pdfs/Zweitspracherwerb_Tendenzen__Ulrike_S.pdf ''Holistische und integrative Tendenzen in der Zweitspracherwerbsforschung''].<br />
*Sharwood Smith, Michael. 1996. Crosslinguistic Influence with Special Reference to the Acquisition of Grammar. In: Jordens, Peter. 1996. ''Investigating Second Language Acquisition''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 71-86.<br />
*Swan, Michael and Smith, Bernard. 1988. ''Learner English – A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
*Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. ''Languages in contact.'' New York.<br />
*Wendt, Michael. 1993. ''Die drei Dimensionen der Lernersprache''. Tübingen: Narr.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Other languages===<br />
German [[Interferenz]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:En]] <br />
[[Category:Bilingualism]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&diff=10351Second language acquisition2009-10-21T20:05:36Z<p>Volker gast: additions made by Sebastian Detzler</p>
<hr />
<div>==Definition==<br />
'''Second language acquisition''' refers to the process of [[language acquisition]] by a speaker who already has a knowledge of another language. The study of [[second language acquisition]] aims to describe and explain that process (cf. Frawley, William J. 2003. ''International Encylopedia of Linguistics''. 2nd edition. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, p. 24).<br />
==Theories of second language acquisition==<br />
===The contrastive (analysis) hypothesis (CAH)===<br />
In the 1950s, the study of [[second language acquisition]] (SLA) was largely based on the [[contrastive hypothesis]] (or 'contrastive analysis hypothesis', CAH). According to this hypothesis, [[interference]] was a main source of errors in the process of '''second language acquisition'''. On the basis of a behaviourist view of language acquisition (stimulus-and-response model), the [[contrastive hypothesis]] regarded instances of interference between L1 and L2 as a result of (linguistic) habits that were transferred from the mother tongue to the language to be learnt. Accordingly, the [[contrastive analysis]] implied that most of the errors made by learners could be predicted by carefully comparing the two languages under comparison (similar language patterns => positive transfer; different language patterns => negative transfer) (Ellis, Rod. 1986. ''Understanding Second Language Acquisition''. 2nd, Improved Edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, p. 22.) Practitioners of [[contrastive linguistics]] at that time mainly aimed at improving foreign language teaching on the basis of a pairwise language comparison.<br />
<br />
===Creative Construction Hypothesis (CCH)===<br />
The CCH emerged in the 1970s. It was based on a critical appraisal of the role of interference in '''second language acquisition'''. According to the CCH, the native language of a learner does not have much influence on the acquisition of another language. Moreover, the CCH held that there is not much difference between first and second language acquisition. According to Heidi C. Dulay and Marina K. Burt, both processes are guided by [[creative construction]], i.e. every learner constantly creates hypotheses about the patterns of the language which s/he is learning. These hypotheses are based on input from the target language. A study conducted by Dulay and Burt showed that only three per cent of learner errors could be explained in terms of [[interference]]. However, the study itself was discussed controversially after its publication (cf. Ellis, Rod. 1986. ''Understanding Second Language Acquisition''. 2nd, Improved Edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, p. 29).<br />
<br />
===Interlanguage Hypothesis (ILH)===<br />
The ILH was most notably formulated by Larry Selinker in 1972 and included [[interference]] as a possible source of error. It explained that learners access a particular linguistic system when they try to acquire another language. This systematic set of rules is called [[interlanguage]] and differs from both the native and the target language. It approximates the target language during the learning process, however. [[Interlanguage]] is thus regarded as a dynamic and constantly changing learner language (cf. Ellis, Rod. 1997. ''The Study of Second Language Acquisition''. 5th, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 114f., p. 350, p. 416, p. 710).<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
==References==<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1986. ''Understanding Second Language Acquisition''. 2nd, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1997. ''The Study of Second Language Acquisition''. 5th, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.<br />
*Frawley, William J. 2003. ''International Encylopedia of Linguistics''. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.<br />
*Kerr, J. 1988. [http://www.iier.org.au/qjer/qr4/kerr.html A study of the identification of instances of language transfer and interference in samples of writing and speech]. ''Queensland Researcher'' 4(1). 4-22.<br />
*Ritchie, William C. 1996. ''Handbook of Second Language Acquisition''. San Diego: Academic Press.<br />
*Schröder, Ulrike. 2007. [http://www.revistamatices.unal.edu.co/pdfs/Zweitspracherwerb_Tendenzen__Ulrike_S.pdf ''Holistische und integrative Tendenzen in der Zweitspracherwerbsforschung''].<br />
*Sharwood Smith, Michael. 1996. Crosslinguistic Influence with Special Reference to the Acquisition of Grammar. In: Jordens, Peter. 1996. ''Investigating Second Language Acquisition''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 71-86.</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Interference&diff=10350Interference2009-10-21T20:02:52Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>===Definition===<br />
In research on [[second language acquisition]] and [[language contact]], the term '''interference''' refers to the influence of one language (or variety) on another in the speech of [[bilingual]]s who use both languages.<br />
<br />
:''"Those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language, i.e. as a result of language contact, will be referred to as INTERFERENCE phenomena."'' (Weinreich 1953:1)<br />
<br />
Interference can take place at all levels of the linguistic system, i.e. in [[phonology]], [[morphology]], [[syntax]], [[semantics]], [[pragmatics]], and the [[lexicon]].<br />
<br />
===Comments===<br />
The influence of one language on another in the speech of bilinguals is relevant both to the field of [[second language acquisition]] (where the interference from the learner's [[native language]] is studied) and to the field of [[historical linguistics]] (where the effects of interference on language change are studied).<br />
<br />
In the context of [[second language acquisition]], interference may lead to either [[negative transfer]] (transfer which results in non-target-like use of L2) or [[positive transfer]] (transfer resulting in target-like use of L2) (cf. Ellis, Rod. 1998. ''Second Language Acquisition''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 51, p. 140). ‘’’Interference’’’ is mostly (and sometimes exclusively) used for instances of [[negative transfer]], and the two terms are often regarded as synonyms (cf. Ellis, Rod. 1997. ''The Study of Second Language Acquisition''. 5th, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, p. 302). Recently, many researchers investigating [[second language acquisition]] have observed that '''interference''' carries a negative connotation and have therefore increasingly tended to avoid it, preferring the term [[transfer]] instead.<br />
<br />
Historical linguists have generally focused on languages rather than speakers, and have used the term ''interference'' in a different, historical sense. However, since the term [[contact-induced change]] has now widely established itself, '''interference''' is no longer common in historical linguistics.<br />
<br />
There is a verb that is derivationally related to the noun '''interference''', i.e. (''to'') ''interfere'' (e.g. "The phonology of the speaker's native language interferes with the use of the second language").<br />
<br />
===Examples===<br />
====Phonological interference====<br />
Phonological interference is a common type of interference, its most prominent manifestation being a “foreign accent”.<br />
<br />
Transfer from Dutch to English (Received Pronunciation): (cf. Swan, Michael and Smith, Bernard. 1988. ''Learner English – A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 4).<br />
<br />
Dutch: Vinger ({{IPA|/ˈv̥ɪŋəʀ/}})<br />
<br />
Incorrect learner English: Finger (*{{IPA|/ˈfɪŋə/}})<br />
<br />
Correct R.P.: Finger ({{IPA|/ˈfɪŋgə/}})<br />
<br />
Words including the combination “''ng''” may be pronounced incorrectly in English, since they are realized as {{IPA|[ŋ]}}in Dutch. In that case, the {{IPA|[ŋ]}}pronounced by a native speaker of Dutch would be transferred to the learner language English, where {{IPA|[ŋɡ]}}would be the correct pronunciation. Therefore, the realization of “''ng''” as ({{IPA|[ŋ]}})in the native language would interfere with the pronunciation of the learner language, e.g. the “''ng''”-combination in ''Finger'': Dutch: {{IPA|[ŋ]}}vs. Received Pronunciation: {{IPA|[ŋɡ]}}.<br />
<br />
====Syntactic interference====<br />
<br />
Transfer from German to English (Received Pronunciation) (cf. König, Ekkehard and Gast, Volker. 2009. ''Understanding English-German Contrasts''. 2., neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, pp. 86f, p. 91 or {{cite web |url=http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2007/3054/ |title=Rothstein, Björn Michael. 2007. ''The Perfect Time Span: On the Present Perfect in German, Swedish and English''.}}):<br />
<br />
German: ''Gestern habe ich Ball gespielt''.<br />
<br />
Incorrect Learner English: *''I have played ball yesterday''.<br />
<br />
Correct Received Pronunciation: ''I played ball yesterday''.<br />
<br />
Since the German Perfekt (''habe gespielt'') is not used in the same way as the English Present Perfect, it may come to interference at the syntactic level (cf. the learner English-example). Speakers of German apply the Perfekt in similar contexts (here: a narrative use) as the German Imperfekt (~the German equivalent of the Past Tense), whereas this is different with the English Present Perfect and the English Past Tense. Here, references to definite moments in the past require the Past Tense.<br />
<br />
====Semantic interference====<br />
Transfer from English to German: cf. {{cite web |url=http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/med-magazine/August2007/46-ArabictoEngl.htm#3 |title=Bennoudi, Hanan. 2007. Lost in Translation: From Arabic to English and back again. ''MED Magazine'' 46.}}<br />
<br />
English: ''He wrote the letter on the blackboard''.<br />
<br />
Incorrect Learner German: ''Er schrieb den *Brief an die Tafel''.<br />
<br />
Correct German: ''Er schrieb den Buchstaben an die Tafel''.<br />
<br />
In English, ''letter'' carries various meanings. This example illustrates especially the following ones: i) the ''letter'' that one can mail by post and ii) the ''letter'' as an element of the alphabet. Since each of the two meanings has its particular counterpart in German, interference at a semantic level could arise. Therefore, a strict word-by-word translation (i.e. with the help of a dictionary) could result in the incorrect choice of ''Brief'' although the context of the English ''letter'' implied the German ''Buchstabe''.<br />
<br />
===Polysemy===<br />
''Interference'' can refer to the influence on one language on another in speech (as in second language acquisition research), or to the influence of one language on another in language change (as in historical linguistic research) (see [[interference (i.e. contact-induced change)]]). In some contexts, the term may be used in a vague sense that is neutral between the two readings.<br />
<br />
===Origin===<br />
The term became well-known through Weinreich's influential (1953) book ''Languages in contact''. Weinreich used the term in both senses (interference in speech and interference in language change).<br />
<br />
Since its introduction (cf. {{cite web |url=http://books.google.de/books?id=7kVF-RVuKH4C&pg=RA1-PA802&lpg=RA1-PA802&dq=%22interference+introduced+by+weinreich%22&source=bl&ots=87VJ7xCRr7&sig=ssm9nvbs_CMv2Niy2VOgR7CXSX4&hl=de&ei=6BqqSv3uNsmO_AbC-dG0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false |title= Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert and Mattheier, Klaus J. 2004. ''Sociolinguistics – An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society''. 2., vollständig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 800ff.}}) into linguistics by Uriel Weinreich in 1953, the term '''interference''' has undergone some changes (cf. Ringbom, Håkan. 2007. ''Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning''. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 32f). Weinreich used the term to refer to any type of pattern transfer (from L1 to L2 and from L2 to L1) (cf. Nemser, William. 1991. Language Contact and Foreign Language Acquisition. In: Ivir, Vladimir. 1991. ''Languages in Contact and Contrast: Essays in Contact Linguistics''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 346). Cf. Odlin, Terence. 1989. ''Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, p. 12, p. 24. In specific fields of [[second language acquisition]], the term came to be used in a narrower sense, i.e. (i) only for transfer from L1 to L2 and (ii) only for [[negative transfer]].<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
*Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert and Mattheier, Klaus J. 2004. [http://books.google.de/books?id=7kVF-RVuKH4C&pg=RA1-PA802&lpg=RA1-PA802&dq=%22interference+introduced+by+weinreich%22&source=bl&ots=87VJ7xCRr7&sig=ssm9nvbs_CMv2Niy2VOgR7CXSX4&hl=de&ei=6BqqSv3uNsmO_AbC-dG0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Sociolinguistics – An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society'']. 2., vollständig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br />
*Bennoudi, Hanan. 2007. [http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/med-magazine/August2007/46-ArabictoEngl.htm#3 Lost in Translation: From Arabic to English and back again]. ''MED Magazine'' 46.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1986. ''Understanding Second Language Acquisition''. 2nd, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1997. ''The Study of Second Language Acquisition''. 5th, improved edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.<br />
*Ellis, Rod. 1998. ''Second Language Acquisition''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
*Jarvis, Scott and Pavlenko, Aneta. 2008. ''Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition''. New York: Routledge.<br />
*Kerr, J. 1988. [http://www.iier.org.au/qjer/qr4/kerr.html A study of the identification of instances of language transfer and interference in samples of writing and speech]. ''Queensland Researcher'' 4(1). 4-22.<br />
* König, Ekkehard and Gast, Volker. 2009. Understanding English-German Contrasts. 2., neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.<br />
*Nemser, William. 1991. Language Contact and Foreign Language Acquisition. In: Ivir, Vladimir. 1991. ''Languages in Contact and Contrast: Essays in Contact Linguistics''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 345-364.<br />
*Odlin, Terence. 1989. ''Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.<br />
*Ringbom, Håkan. 2007. ''Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning''. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.<br />
*Ritchie, William C. 1996. ''Handbook of Second Language Acquisition''. San Diego: Academic Press.<br />
*Rothstein, Björn Michael. 2007. [http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2007/3054/ ''The Perfect Time Span: On the Present Perfect in German, Swedish and English''].<br />
*Saville-Troike, Muriel. 2006. ''Introducing Second Language Acquisition''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.<br />
*Schröder, Ulrike. 2007. [http://www.revistamatices.unal.edu.co/pdfs/Zweitspracherwerb_Tendenzen__Ulrike_S.pdf ''Holistische und integrative Tendenzen in der Zweitspracherwerbsforschung''].<br />
*Sharwood Smith, Michael. 1996. Crosslinguistic Influence with Special Reference to the Acquisition of Grammar. In: Jordens, Peter. 1996. ''Investigating Second Language Acquisition''. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 71-86.<br />
*Swan, Michael and Smith, Bernard. 1988. ''Learner English – A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
*Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. ''Languages in contact.'' New York.<br />
*Wendt, Michael. 1993. ''Die drei Dimensionen der Lernersprache''. Tübingen: Narr.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Other languages===<br />
German [[Interferenz]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:En]] <br />
[[Category:Bilingualism]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Situation&diff=10349Situation2009-10-21T19:38:29Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__<br />
<br />
In semantics, '''situation''' is used as a cover term for [[action]]s, [[process]]es and [[state]]s. The concept 'situation' is so basic that it is very difficult to define it through still more basic concepts. <br />
<br />
In describing languages, a fundamental constrast is between situations and [[participant]]s. Participants are generally expressed by [[noun phrase]]s, and situations are expressed by [[clause]]s. Often the term ''situation'' is also used to refer to just the verb's meaning (which can more precisely be called [[situation core]]).<br />
<br />
==Comments==<br />
<br />
The term ''situation'' for this fundamental concept has been used prominently e.g. by Comrie (1976), Lyons (1977), and Lehmann (1991).<br />
::*''"There is, unfortunately, no satisfactory term that will cover states, on the one hand, and events, processes and actions, on the other. We will use the term situation for this purpose; and we will draw a high-level distinction between static and dynamic situations."'' (Lyons 1977:483)<br />
<br />
It has the disadvantage of suggesting a stative situation, but this disadvantage is shared by the competitor ''state of affairs'', and the other competitor event has the disadvantage of even more strongly suggesting a dynamic situation (as in "event vs. state").<br />
<br />
==Synonyms==<br />
<br />
* [[state of affairs]] (e.g. Dik 1978, 1997; Van Valin & LaPolla 1997)<br />
* [[process]] (e.g. Halliday 1985)<br />
* [[event]] (e.g. Bohnemeyer 2002)<br />
* [[eventuality]]<br />
<br />
==Polysemy==<br />
<br />
The term situation is also used for<br />
* a specific concept in the formal semantic framework of [[situation semantics]] -- see [[situation (in situation semantics)]].<br />
<br />
==Origin==<br />
<br />
Perhaps ''situation'' has first been used in this more technical semantic sense in Comrie (1976). According to Comrie (p.c. to Martin Haspelmath, May 2006), the usage in Comrie (1976) follows a suggestion of John Lyons's.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Properties of situations==<br />
<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of ontological properties like '(non)staticness', '(non)durativity', '(non)telicity', '(non)agentiveness', '(non)homogeneousness', '(non)transitionalness' and '(non)evolvingness' (Declerck 2006: 40).<br />
<br />
===Singulary vs. multiple situations===<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of their number of occurrence. A singulary situation consists of only one instance of the situation, while a multiple situation comprises more than one instance of the same sub-situation. There are three ways in which a situation can be multiple: <br />
# iterative multiple situations, i.e. there is a multiplicity of subsituations,<br />
# repeated multiple situations, which areusually indicated with an adjunct expressing how often the situation has occurred, and <br />
# serial multiple situations, where the occurrence of the sub-situation is unbounded. In the case of iterative multiple situations, the subsituations are [[achievement]]s, but the overall situation is an [[activity]]. Serial multiple situations can be [[state]]s, [[achievement]]s, [[accomplishment]]s or [[activity|activities]].<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* singulary<br />
** I was born on Good Friday.<br />
** The President has resigned.<br />
* iterative<br />
** She knocked at the door (more than once).<br />
* repeated<br />
** She saw him twice.<br />
** I met him several times.<br />
* serial<br />
** She usually mows the lawn herself. She usually gets up at six.<br />
<br />
===Static versus dynamic situations===<br />
<br />
Situations can be [[static]] (or '[[stative]]') or [[dynamic]]. Static situations exist or obtain and do not involve change, whereas dynamic situations by definition involve change. The difference between static and dynamic situations is reflected in linguistic difference between the relevant predicates (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 119ff).<br />
* The progressive aspect does not (normally) occur with static situations in English.<br />
* The simple present typically combines with static situations when it is used with present time reference, and only rarely with dynamic ones. <br />
* Pseudo-clefts with ''do'' only occur with dynamic situations.<br />
* Certain verbs can only be used to refer to a static situation: ''seem'', ''contain'', ''know'', ''consist of''<br />
<br />
Examples: <br />
* static<br />
** The flag is red.<br />
** The flag was red.<br />
** He likes her.<br />
** They believe in God.<br />
** I know the answer. <br />
* dynamic<br />
** He is playing tennis. She married Tom. What she did next was learn German. <br />
<br />
===Punctual versus durative situations===<br />
Punctual (=instantaneous) situations are happenings at a given point in time, while durative situations have a certain duration. Punctual situation predicates do not (normally) occur with aspectual verbs like ''begin'' and punctual situations do not (normally) go together with the progressive aspect. It is important to mention that duration can also be instantiated by the repetition of a (punctual) situation.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* punctual<br />
** I declare the meeting closed.<br />
** I found the key.<br />
** He had died.<br />
** She reached the top.<br />
* durative<br />
** He began to work.<br />
** He stopped snoring.<br />
** I was knocking at the door.<br />
<br />
=== Telic versus atelic situations===<br />
Telic situations have an inbuilt endpoint beyond which they cannot continue. Atelic situations have no such inherent terminal point. Atelic situations may combine with ''for''-adverbials (e.g. ''for an hour''), while telic situations combine with ''in''-adverbials (e.g. ''in an hour'').<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
<br />
* telic<br />
** She is writing a note.<br />
** We walked six kilometers in an hour.<br />
** We walked to London.<br />
* atelic<br />
** She is writing notes.<br />
** He walked for an hour. <br />
** She drove him safely<br />
<br />
=== Agentive versus nonagentive situations===<br />
A situation is agentive if any actualization of it is performed or instigated by an agent. Nonagentive situations simply happen without a implying a performer or instigator. <br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* agentive<br />
** John hit Bill on the nose. <br />
** She’s walking home now. <br />
** The Post office is suing us.<br />
* non-agentive<br />
** The accident happened around midnight. <br />
** Bill is an old man.<br />
<br />
===Homogeneous versus heterogeneous situations===<br />
A durative situation is homogeneous if its parts are of the same kind as the entire situation; otherwise the situation is heterogeneous. All static situations are homogeneous by definition. Dynamic situations are considered as homogeneous if they are conceptualized as consisting of a number of stages which are sub-situations of the same kind of an overall situation. Situations are considered as heterogeneous when the whole situation consists of sub-situations of different types.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* homogeneous<br />
** John drank beer.<br />
** Bill is a reliable worker.<br />
**John roamed the streets last night.<br />
* heterogeneous<br />
** John drank five glasses of beer.<br />
<br />
===(Non)transitional===<br />
A situation may also be (+) or (-) transitional. A situation is regarded as transitional if it consists of a single transition, conceived of as punctual, from one state into another. Transitional verbs are: ''die'', ''open'', ''kill'', ''pick up'', etc. <br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* + transitional<br />
** John died two weeks ago. Jim suddenly stopped talking<br />
* - transitional<br />
** Last week John was dying.<br />
<br />
===(Non)evolving===<br />
A situation may be evolving, meaning that it develops gradually; otherwise it is not evolving. Evolving situations are always dynamic, durative, nonagentive, and imply a gradual change; punctual situations and states are never evolving. Evolving verbs are: ''change'', ''develop'', ''grow'' etc.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* + evolving<br />
** The situation deteriorated. <br />
* - evolving<br />
** John drew a circle.<br />
<br />
==Types of situation==<br />
The types of situations distinguished differ from author to author.<br />
<br />
===Huddleston & Pullum (2002)===<br />
Huddleston & Pullum (2002) distinguish six different situation types: states, occurrences, processes, achievements, activities and accomplishments. They group them by only three ontological features: (1) (non)staticness (2) (non)durativity (3) (non)telicity?<br />
<br />
{| border="1" <br />
|-<br />
! !! static!! durative!! telic<br />
|-<br />
|state ||+ ||+ ||-<br />
|-<br />
|occurrence ||- ||+/- ||+/-<br />
|-<br />
|process ||- ||+ ||+/-<br />
|-<br />
|achievement ||- ||- ||+<br />
|-<br />
|activity ||- ||+ ||-<br />
|-<br />
|accomplishment ||- ||+ ||+<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Huddleston & Pullum call static situations ‘states’ and dynamic situations ‘occurrences’. ‘Achievements’ are also dynamic situations, but they are also regarded as punctual and telic. ‘Processes’ are durative situations and can be subdivided into ‘activities’, which are atelic, and ‘accomplishments’, which are telic situations.<br />
<br />
===Declerck (2006)===<br />
Declerck has a fourfold distinction and classifies situations into ‘states’, ‘actions’, ‘processes’, and ‘events’. <br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
! !!static !!durative !!telic !!agentive !!homogeneous !!transitional !!evolving<br />
|-<br />
|state ||+ ||+ ||- ||- ||+ ||- ||-<br />
|-<br />
|action ||- ||+/- ||+/- ||+ ||+/- ||+/- ||-<br />
|-<br />
|process ||- ||+ ||+/- ||- ||+/- ||- ||+<br />
|-<br />
|event ||- ||+/- ||+/- ||- ||+/- ||+/- ||-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
* Process verbs: ''change'', ''grow'', ''mature'', ''die'', ''widen'', ''slow down'', ''improve'', ''thicken'', ''diminish'', ''darken'' etc. <br />
* Action verbs: ''walk'', ''read'', ''think'', ''look at'', ''write'', ''abandon'', ''ask'', ''play'' etc.<br />
* Event verbs: ''explode'', ''burst'', ''take place'', ''rain'', ''occur'', ''happen'', ''break down'', ''snow'', ''befall'' etc.<br />
<br />
===Lyons (1977)===<br />
Lyons’ classification is similar to Declerck’s, but there are a few differences. He does not use the feature 'evolving'; processes and events are either agentive and nonagentive.<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
! !!static !!durative !!telic !!agentive !!homogeneous !!transitional<br />
|-<br />
|state ||+ ||+ ||- ||- ||+ ||-<br />
|-<br />
|action ||- ||+/- ||+/- ||+ ||+/- ||+/-<br />
|-<br />
|process ||- ||+ ||+/- ||+/- ||+/- ||-<br />
|-<br />
|event ||- ||+/- ||+/- ||+/- ||+/- ||+/-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Vendler (1967)===<br />
Vendler subclassifies situations into 'states', 'activities', 'accomplishments' and 'achievements'. The ontological features used here are 'durativity' and 'telicity'.<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
! !!durative !!telic !!example<br />
|-<br />
|state ||- ||- ||Know the answer<br />
|-<br />
|activity ||+ ||- ||Dance, walk<br />
|-<br />
|accomplishment ||+ ||+ ||Build a house<br />
|-<br />
|achievement ||- ||+ ||Win the game, die<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Smith (1991)===<br />
Smith distinguishes between five different types of situations: 'states', 'activities', 'accomplishments', 'semelfactives' and 'achievements'. They are grouped according to the features of 'staticness', 'durativity' and 'telicity'.<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
! !!static !!durative !!telic !!Example<br />
|-<br />
|state ||+ ||+ || ||Know the answer, love Mary<br />
|-<br />
|activity ||- ||+ ||- ||Laugh, stroll in the park<br />
|-<br />
|accomplishment ||- ||+ ||+ ||Learn Greek, build a house<br />
|-<br />
|semelfactive ||- ||- ||- ||Tap, knock<br />
|-<br />
|achievement ||- ||- ||+ ||Reach the top<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Mourelatos (1978)===<br />
Mourelatos defines six different types of situations; they are grouped according to the ontological features of 'staticness' and 'telicity'.<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
! !!static !!telic<br />
|-<br />
|state ||+ ||-<br />
|-<br />
|occurrence ||- ||+/-<br />
|-<br />
|process ||- ||-<br />
|-<br />
|event ||- ||+<br />
|-<br />
|development ||- ||+<br />
|-<br />
|punctual occurrence ||- ||+<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
* Declerck, R. (2006). ''The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase, Vol. 1: The Grammar of the English Tense System.'' Topics in English Linguistics 60. Berlin: Mouton. In collaboration with Susan Reed and Bert Capelle.<br />
*Bohnemeyer 2002<br />
*Comrie 1976<br />
*Dik 1978<br />
*Dik 1997<br />
*Halliday 1985<br />
*Lyons 1977<br />
*Lehmann 1991<br />
*Van Valin & LaPolla 1997<br />
<br />
==other languages==<br />
German [[Situation (de)|Situation]]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Aspect]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Situation&diff=10348Situation2009-10-21T19:26:49Z<p>Volker gast: /* Types of situation */</p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__<br />
<br />
In semantics, '''situation''' is used as a cover term for [[action]]s, [[process]]es and [[state]]s. The concept 'situation' is so basic that it is very difficult to define it through still more basic concepts. <br />
<br />
In describing languages, a fundamental constrast is between situations and [[participant]]s. Participants are generally expressed by [[noun phrase]]s, and situations are expressed by [[clause]]s. Often the term ''situation'' is also used to refer to just the verb's meaning (which can more precisely be called [[situation core]]).<br />
<br />
==Comments==<br />
<br />
The term ''situation'' for this fundamental concept has been used prominently e.g. by Comrie (1976), Lyons (1977), and Lehmann (1991).<br />
::*''"There is, unfortunately, no satisfactory term that will cover states, on the one hand, and events, processes and actions, on the other. We will use the term situation for this purpose; and we will draw a high-level distinction between static and dynamic situations."'' (Lyons 1977:483)<br />
<br />
It has the disadvantage of suggesting a stative situation, but this disadvantage is shared by the competitor ''state of affairs'', and the other competitor event has the disadvantage of even more strongly suggesting a dynamic situation (as in "event vs. state").<br />
<br />
==Synonyms==<br />
<br />
* [[state of affairs]] (e.g. Dik 1978, 1997; Van Valin & LaPolla 1997)<br />
* [[process]] (e.g. Halliday 1985)<br />
* [[event]] (e.g. Bohnemeyer 2002)<br />
* [[eventuality]]<br />
<br />
==Polysemy==<br />
<br />
The term situation is also used for<br />
* a specific concept in the formal semantic framework of [[situation semantics]] -- see [[situation (in situation semantics)]].<br />
<br />
==Origin==<br />
<br />
Perhaps ''situation'' has first been used in this more technical semantic sense in Comrie (1976). According to Comrie (p.c. to Martin Haspelmath, May 2006), the usage in Comrie (1976) follows a suggestion of John Lyons's.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Properties of situations==<br />
<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of ontological properties like '(non)staticness', '(non)durativity', '(non)telicity', '(non)agentiveness', '(non)homogeneousness', '(non)transitionalness' and '(non)evolvingness' (Declerck 2006: 40).<br />
<br />
===Singulary vs. multiple situations===<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of their number of occurrence. A singulary situation consists of only one instance of the situation, while a multiple situation comprises more than one instance of the same sub-situation. There are three ways in which a situation can be multiple: <br />
# iterative multiple situations, i.e. there is a multiplicity of subsituations,<br />
# repeated multiple situations, which areusually indicated with an adjunct expressing how often the situation has occurred, and <br />
# serial multiple situations, where the occurrence of the sub-situation is unbounded. In the case of iterative multiple situations, the subsituations are [[achievement]]s, but the overall situation is an [[activity]]. Serial multiple situations can be [[state]]s, [[achievement]]s, [[accomplishment]]s or [[activity|activities]].<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* singulary<br />
** I was born on Good Friday.<br />
** The President has resigned.<br />
* iterative<br />
** She knocked at the door (more than once).<br />
* repeated<br />
** She saw him twice.<br />
** I met him several times.<br />
* serial<br />
** She usually mows the lawn herself. She usually gets up at six.<br />
<br />
===Static versus dynamic situations===<br />
<br />
Situations can be [[static]] (or '[[stative]]') or [[dynamic]]. Static situations exist or obtain and do not involve change, whereas dynamic situations by definition involve change. The difference between static and dynamic situations is reflected in linguistic difference between the relevant predicates (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 119ff).<br />
* The progressive aspect does not (normally) occur with static situations in English.<br />
* The simple present typically combines with static situations when it is used with present time reference, and only rarely with dynamic ones. <br />
* Pseudo-clefts with ''do'' only occur with dynamic situations.<br />
* Certain verbs can only be used to refer to a static situation: ''seem'', ''contain'', ''know'', ''consist of''<br />
<br />
Examples: <br />
* static<br />
** The flag is red.<br />
** The flag was red.<br />
** He likes her.<br />
** They believe in God.<br />
** I know the answer. <br />
* dynamic<br />
** He is playing tennis. She married Tom. What she did next was learn German. <br />
<br />
===Punctual versus durative situations===<br />
Punctual (=instantaneous) situations are happenings at a given point in time, while durative situations have a certain duration. Punctual situation predicates do not (normally) occur with aspectual verbs like ''begin'' and punctual situations do not (normally) go together with the progressive aspect. It is important to mention that duration can also be instantiated by the repetition of a (punctual) situation.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* punctual<br />
** I declare the meeting closed.<br />
** I found the key.<br />
** He had died.<br />
** She reached the top.<br />
* durative<br />
** He began to work.<br />
** He stopped snoring.<br />
** I was knocking at the door.<br />
<br />
=== Telic versus atelic situations===<br />
Telic situations have an inbuilt endpoint beyond which they cannot continue. Atelic situations have no such inherent terminal point. Atelic situations may combine with ''for''-adverbials (e.g. ''for an hour''), while telic situations combine with ''in''-adverbials (e.g. ''in an hour'').<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
<br />
* telic<br />
** She is writing a note.<br />
** We walked six kilometers in an hour.<br />
** We walked to London.<br />
* atelic<br />
** She is writing notes.<br />
** He walked for an hour. <br />
** She drove him safely<br />
<br />
=== Agentive versus nonagentive situations===<br />
A situation is agentive if any actualization of it is performed or instigated by an agent. Nonagentive situations simply happen without a implying a performer or instigator. <br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* agentive<br />
** John hit Bill on the nose. <br />
** She’s walking home now. <br />
** The Post office is suing us.<br />
* non-agentive<br />
** The accident happened around midnight. <br />
** Bill is an old man.<br />
<br />
===Homogeneous versus heterogeneous situations===<br />
A durative situation is homogeneous if its parts are of the same kind as the entire situation; otherwise the situation is heterogeneous. All static situations are homogeneous by definition. Dynamic situations are considered as homogeneous if they are conceptualized as consisting of a number of stages which are sub-situations of the same kind of an overall situation. Situations are considered as heterogeneous when the whole situation consists of sub-situations of different types.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* homogeneous<br />
** John drank beer.<br />
** Bill is a reliable worker.<br />
**John roamed the streets last night.<br />
* heterogeneous<br />
** John drank five glasses of beer.<br />
<br />
===(Non)transitional===<br />
A situation may also be (+) or (-) transitional. A situation is regarded as transitional if it consists of a single transition, conceived of as punctual, from one state into another. Transitional verbs are: ''die'', ''open'', ''kill'', ''pick up'', etc. <br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* + transitional<br />
** John died two weeks ago. Jim suddenly stopped talking<br />
* - transitional<br />
** Last week John was dying.<br />
<br />
===(Non)evolving===<br />
A situation may be evolving, meaning that it develops gradually; otherwise it is not evolving. Evolving situations are always dynamic, durative, nonagentive, and imply a gradual change; punctual situations and states are never evolving. Evolving verbs are: ''change'', ''develop'', ''grow'' etc.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* + evolving<br />
** The situation deteriorated. <br />
* - evolving<br />
** John drew a circle.<br />
<br />
==Types of situation==<br />
The types of situations distinguished differ from author to author.<br />
<br />
===Huddleston & Pullum (2002)===<br />
Huddleston & Pullum (2002) distinguish six different situation types: states, occurrences, processes, achievements, activities and accomplishments. They group them by only three ontological features: (1) (non)staticness (2) (non)durativity (3) (non)telicity?<br />
<br />
{| border="1" <br />
|-<br />
! !! static!! durative!! telic<br />
|-<br />
|state ||+ ||+ ||-<br />
|-<br />
|occurrence ||- ||+/- ||+/-<br />
|-<br />
|process ||- ||+ ||+/-<br />
|-<br />
|achievement ||- ||- ||+<br />
|-<br />
|activity ||- ||+ ||-<br />
|-<br />
|accomplishment ||- ||+ ||+<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Huddleston & Pullum call static situations ‘states’ and dynamic situations ‘occurrences’. ‘Achievements’ are also dynamic situations, but they are also regarded as punctual and telic. ‘Processes’ are durative situations and can be subdivided into ‘activities’, which are atelic, and ‘accomplishments’, which are telic situations.<br />
<br />
===Declerck (2006)===<br />
Declerck has a fourfold distinction and classifies situations into ‘states’, ‘actions’, ‘processes’, and ‘events’. <br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
! !!static !!durative !!telic !!agentive !!homogeneous !!transitional !!evolving<br />
|-<br />
|state ||+ ||+ ||- ||- ||+ ||- ||-<br />
|-<br />
|action ||- ||+/- ||+/- ||+ ||+/- ||+/- ||-<br />
|-<br />
|process ||- ||+ ||+/- ||- ||+/- ||- ||+<br />
|-<br />
|event ||- ||+/- ||+/- ||- ||+/- ||+/- ||-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Process verbs: change, grow, mature, die, widen, slow down, improve, thicken, diminish, darken etc. <br />
Action verbs: walk, read, think, look at, write, abandon, ask, play etc.<br />
Event verbs: explode, burst, tale place, rain, occur, happen, break down, snow, befall etc.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
* Declerck, R. (2006). ''The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase, Vol. 1: The Grammar of the English Tense System.'' Topics in English Linguistics 60. Berlin: Mouton. In collaboration with Susan Reed and Bert Capelle.<br />
*Bohnemeyer 2002<br />
*Comrie 1976<br />
*Dik 1978<br />
*Dik 1997<br />
*Halliday 1985<br />
*Lyons 1977<br />
*Lehmann 1991<br />
*Van Valin & LaPolla 1997<br />
<br />
==other languages==<br />
German [[Situation (de)|Situation]]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Aspect]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Situation&diff=10347Situation2009-10-21T19:23:27Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__<br />
<br />
In semantics, '''situation''' is used as a cover term for [[action]]s, [[process]]es and [[state]]s. The concept 'situation' is so basic that it is very difficult to define it through still more basic concepts. <br />
<br />
In describing languages, a fundamental constrast is between situations and [[participant]]s. Participants are generally expressed by [[noun phrase]]s, and situations are expressed by [[clause]]s. Often the term ''situation'' is also used to refer to just the verb's meaning (which can more precisely be called [[situation core]]).<br />
<br />
==Comments==<br />
<br />
The term ''situation'' for this fundamental concept has been used prominently e.g. by Comrie (1976), Lyons (1977), and Lehmann (1991).<br />
::*''"There is, unfortunately, no satisfactory term that will cover states, on the one hand, and events, processes and actions, on the other. We will use the term situation for this purpose; and we will draw a high-level distinction between static and dynamic situations."'' (Lyons 1977:483)<br />
<br />
It has the disadvantage of suggesting a stative situation, but this disadvantage is shared by the competitor ''state of affairs'', and the other competitor event has the disadvantage of even more strongly suggesting a dynamic situation (as in "event vs. state").<br />
<br />
==Synonyms==<br />
<br />
* [[state of affairs]] (e.g. Dik 1978, 1997; Van Valin & LaPolla 1997)<br />
* [[process]] (e.g. Halliday 1985)<br />
* [[event]] (e.g. Bohnemeyer 2002)<br />
* [[eventuality]]<br />
<br />
==Polysemy==<br />
<br />
The term situation is also used for<br />
* a specific concept in the formal semantic framework of [[situation semantics]] -- see [[situation (in situation semantics)]].<br />
<br />
==Origin==<br />
<br />
Perhaps ''situation'' has first been used in this more technical semantic sense in Comrie (1976). According to Comrie (p.c. to Martin Haspelmath, May 2006), the usage in Comrie (1976) follows a suggestion of John Lyons's.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Properties of situations==<br />
<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of ontological properties like '(non)staticness', '(non)durativity', '(non)telicity', '(non)agentiveness', '(non)homogeneousness', '(non)transitionalness' and '(non)evolvingness' (Declerck 2006: 40).<br />
<br />
===Singulary vs. multiple situations===<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of their number of occurrence. A singulary situation consists of only one instance of the situation, while a multiple situation comprises more than one instance of the same sub-situation. There are three ways in which a situation can be multiple: <br />
# iterative multiple situations, i.e. there is a multiplicity of subsituations,<br />
# repeated multiple situations, which areusually indicated with an adjunct expressing how often the situation has occurred, and <br />
# serial multiple situations, where the occurrence of the sub-situation is unbounded. In the case of iterative multiple situations, the subsituations are [[achievement]]s, but the overall situation is an [[activity]]. Serial multiple situations can be [[state]]s, [[achievement]]s, [[accomplishment]]s or [[activity|activities]].<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* singulary<br />
** I was born on Good Friday.<br />
** The President has resigned.<br />
* iterative<br />
** She knocked at the door (more than once).<br />
* repeated<br />
** She saw him twice.<br />
** I met him several times.<br />
* serial<br />
** She usually mows the lawn herself. She usually gets up at six.<br />
<br />
===Static versus dynamic situations===<br />
<br />
Situations can be [[static]] (or '[[stative]]') or [[dynamic]]. Static situations exist or obtain and do not involve change, whereas dynamic situations by definition involve change. The difference between static and dynamic situations is reflected in linguistic difference between the relevant predicates (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 119ff).<br />
* The progressive aspect does not (normally) occur with static situations in English.<br />
* The simple present typically combines with static situations when it is used with present time reference, and only rarely with dynamic ones. <br />
* Pseudo-clefts with ''do'' only occur with dynamic situations.<br />
* Certain verbs can only be used to refer to a static situation: ''seem'', ''contain'', ''know'', ''consist of''<br />
<br />
Examples: <br />
* static<br />
** The flag is red.<br />
** The flag was red.<br />
** He likes her.<br />
** They believe in God.<br />
** I know the answer. <br />
* dynamic<br />
** He is playing tennis. She married Tom. What she did next was learn German. <br />
<br />
===Punctual versus durative situations===<br />
Punctual (=instantaneous) situations are happenings at a given point in time, while durative situations have a certain duration. Punctual situation predicates do not (normally) occur with aspectual verbs like ''begin'' and punctual situations do not (normally) go together with the progressive aspect. It is important to mention that duration can also be instantiated by the repetition of a (punctual) situation.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* punctual<br />
** I declare the meeting closed.<br />
** I found the key.<br />
** He had died.<br />
** She reached the top.<br />
* durative<br />
** He began to work.<br />
** He stopped snoring.<br />
** I was knocking at the door.<br />
<br />
=== Telic versus atelic situations===<br />
Telic situations have an inbuilt endpoint beyond which they cannot continue. Atelic situations have no such inherent terminal point. Atelic situations may combine with ''for''-adverbials (e.g. ''for an hour''), while telic situations combine with ''in''-adverbials (e.g. ''in an hour'').<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
<br />
* telic<br />
** She is writing a note.<br />
** We walked six kilometers in an hour.<br />
** We walked to London.<br />
* atelic<br />
** She is writing notes.<br />
** He walked for an hour. <br />
** She drove him safely<br />
<br />
=== Agentive versus nonagentive situations===<br />
A situation is agentive if any actualization of it is performed or instigated by an agent. Nonagentive situations simply happen without a implying a performer or instigator. <br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* agentive<br />
** John hit Bill on the nose. <br />
** She’s walking home now. <br />
** The Post office is suing us.<br />
* non-agentive<br />
** The accident happened around midnight. <br />
** Bill is an old man.<br />
<br />
===Homogeneous versus heterogeneous situations===<br />
A durative situation is homogeneous if its parts are of the same kind as the entire situation; otherwise the situation is heterogeneous. All static situations are homogeneous by definition. Dynamic situations are considered as homogeneous if they are conceptualized as consisting of a number of stages which are sub-situations of the same kind of an overall situation. Situations are considered as heterogeneous when the whole situation consists of sub-situations of different types.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* homogeneous<br />
** John drank beer.<br />
** Bill is a reliable worker.<br />
**John roamed the streets last night.<br />
* heterogeneous<br />
** John drank five glasses of beer.<br />
<br />
===(Non)transitional===<br />
A situation may also be (+) or (-) transitional. A situation is regarded as transitional if it consists of a single transition, conceived of as punctual, from one state into another. Transitional verbs are: ''die'', ''open'', ''kill'', ''pick up'', etc. <br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* + transitional<br />
** John died two weeks ago. Jim suddenly stopped talking<br />
* - transitional<br />
** Last week John was dying.<br />
<br />
===(Non)evolving===<br />
A situation may be evolving, meaning that it develops gradually; otherwise it is not evolving. Evolving situations are always dynamic, durative, nonagentive, and imply a gradual change; punctual situations and states are never evolving. Evolving verbs are: ''change'', ''develop'', ''grow'' etc.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* + evolving<br />
** The situation deteriorated. <br />
* - evolving<br />
** John drew a circle.<br />
<br />
==Types of situation==<br />
The types of situations distinguished differ from author to author.<br />
<br />
===Huddleston & Pullum (2002)===<br />
Huddleston & Pullum (2002) distinguish six different situation types: states, occurrences, processes, achievements, activities and accomplishments. They group them by only three ontological features: (1) (non)staticness (2) (non)durativity (3) (non)telicity?<br />
<br />
{| border="1" <br />
|-<br />
! !! static!! durative!! telic<br />
|-<br />
|state ||+ ||+ ||-<br />
|-<br />
|occurrence ||- ||+/- ||+/-<br />
|-<br />
|process ||- ||+ ||+/-<br />
|-<br />
|achievement ||- ||- ||+<br />
|-<br />
|activity ||- ||+ ||-<br />
|-<br />
|accomplishment ||- ||+ ||+<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
* Declerck, R. (2006). ''The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase, Vol. 1: The Grammar of the English Tense System.'' Topics in English Linguistics 60. Berlin: Mouton. In collaboration with Susan Reed and Bert Capelle.<br />
*Bohnemeyer 2002<br />
*Comrie 1976<br />
*Dik 1978<br />
*Dik 1997<br />
*Halliday 1985<br />
*Lyons 1977<br />
*Lehmann 1991<br />
*Van Valin & LaPolla 1997<br />
<br />
==other languages==<br />
German [[Situation (de)|Situation]]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Aspect]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Situation&diff=10346Situation2009-10-21T19:18:51Z<p>Volker gast: /* Subtypes */</p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__<br />
<br />
In semantics, '''situation''' is used as a cover term for [[action]]s, [[process]]es and [[state]]s. The concept 'situation' is so basic that it is very difficult to define it through still more basic concepts. <br />
<br />
In describing languages, a fundamental constrast is between situations and [[participant]]s. Participants are generally expressed by [[noun phrase]]s, and situations are expressed by [[clause]]s. Often the term ''situation'' is also used to refer to just the verb's meaning (which can more precisely be called [[situation core]]).<br />
<br />
==Comments ==<br />
<br />
The term ''situation'' for this fundamental concept has been used prominently e.g. by Comrie (1976), Lyons (1977), and Lehmann (1991).<br />
::*''"There is, unfortunately, no satisfactory term that will cover states, on the one hand, and events, processes and actions, on the other. We will use the term situation for this purpose; and we will draw a high-level distinction between static and dynamic situations."'' (Lyons 1977:483)<br />
<br />
It has the disadvantage of suggesting a stative situation, but this disadvantage is shared by the competitor ''state of affairs'', and the other competitor event has the disadvantage of even more strongly suggesting a dynamic situation (as in "event vs. state").<br />
<br />
==Properties of situations==<br />
<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of ontological properties like '(non)staticness', '(non)durativity', '(non)telicity', '(non)agentiveness', '(non)homogeneousness', '(non)transitionalness' and '(non)evolvingness' (Declerck 2006: 40).<br />
<br />
===Singulary vs. multiple situations===<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of their number of occurrence. A singulary situation consists of only one instance of the situation, while a multiple situation comprises more than one instance of the same sub-situation. There are three ways in which a situation can be multiple: <br />
# iterative multiple situations, i.e. there is a multiplicity of subsituations,<br />
# repeated multiple situations, which areusually indicated with an adjunct expressing how often the situation has occurred, and <br />
# serial multiple situations, where the occurrence of the sub-situation is unbounded. In the case of iterative multiple situations, the subsituations are [[achievement]]s, but the overall situation is an [[activity]]. Serial multiple situations can be [[state]]s, [[achievement]]s, [[accomplishment]]s or [[activity|activities]].<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* singulary<br />
** I was born on Good Friday.<br />
** The President has resigned.<br />
* iterative<br />
** She knocked at the door (more than once).<br />
* repeated<br />
** She saw him twice.<br />
** I met him several times.<br />
* serial<br />
** She usually mows the lawn herself. She usually gets up at six.<br />
<br />
===Static versus dynamic situations===<br />
<br />
Situations can be [[static]] (or '[[stative]]') or [[dynamic]]. Static situations exist or obtain and do not involve change, whereas dynamic situations by definition involve change. The difference between static and dynamic situations is reflected in linguistic difference between the relevant predicates (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 119ff).<br />
* The progressive aspect does not (normally) occur with static situations in English.<br />
* The simple present typically combines with static situations when it is used with present time reference, and only rarely with dynamic ones. <br />
* Pseudo-clefts with ''do'' only occur with dynamic situations.<br />
* Certain verbs can only be used to refer to a static situation: ''seem'', ''contain'', ''know'', ''consist of''<br />
<br />
Examples: <br />
* static<br />
** The flag is red.<br />
** The flag was red.<br />
** He likes her.<br />
** They believe in God.<br />
** I know the answer. <br />
* dynamic<br />
** He is playing tennis. She married Tom. What she did next was learn German. <br />
<br />
===Punctual versus durative situations===<br />
Punctual (=instantaneous) situations are happenings at a given point in time, while durative situations have a certain duration. Punctual situation predicates do not (normally) occur with aspectual verbs like ''begin'' and punctual situations do not (normally) go together with the progressive aspect. It is important to mention that duration can also be instantiated by the repetition of a (punctual) situation.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* punctual<br />
** I declare the meeting closed.<br />
** I found the key.<br />
** He had died.<br />
** She reached the top.<br />
* durative<br />
** He began to work.<br />
** He stopped snoring.<br />
** I was knocking at the door.<br />
<br />
=== Telic versus atelic situations===<br />
Telic situations have an inbuilt endpoint beyond which they cannot continue. Atelic situations have no such inherent terminal point. Atelic situations may combine with ''for''-adverbials (e.g. ''for an hour''), while telic situations combine with ''in''-adverbials (e.g. ''in an hour'').<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
<br />
* telic<br />
** She is writing a note.<br />
** We walked six kilometers in an hour.<br />
** We walked to London.<br />
* atelic<br />
** She is writing notes.<br />
** He walked for an hour. <br />
** She drove him safely<br />
<br />
=== Agentive versus nonagentive situations===<br />
A situation is agentive if any actualization of it is performed or instigated by an agent. Nonagentive situations simply happen without a implying a performer or instigator. <br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* agentive<br />
** John hit Bill on the nose. <br />
** She’s walking home now. <br />
** The Post office is suing us.<br />
* non-agentive<br />
** The accident happened around midnight. <br />
** Bill is an old man.<br />
<br />
===Homogeneous versus heterogeneous situations===<br />
A durative situation is homogeneous if its parts are of the same kind as the entire situation; otherwise the situation is heterogeneous. All static situations are homogeneous by definition. Dynamic situations are considered as homogeneous if they are conceptualized as consisting of a number of stages which are sub-situations of the same kind of an overall situation. Situations are considered as heterogeneous when the whole situation consists of sub-situations of different types.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* homogeneous<br />
** John drank beer.<br />
** Bill is a reliable worker.<br />
**John roamed the streets last night.<br />
* heterogeneous<br />
** John drank five glasses of beer.<br />
<br />
===(Non)transitional===<br />
A situation may also be (+) or (-) transitional. A situation is regarded as transitional if it consists of a single transition, conceived of as punctual, from one state into another. Transitional verbs are: ''die'', ''open'', ''kill'', ''pick up'', etc. <br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* + transitional<br />
** John died two weeks ago. Jim suddenly stopped talking<br />
* - transitional<br />
** Last week John was dying.<br />
<br />
===(Non)evolving===<br />
A situation may be evolving, meaning that it develops gradually; otherwise it is not evolving. Evolving situations are always dynamic, durative, nonagentive, and imply a gradual change; punctual situations and states are never evolving. Evolving verbs are: ''change'', ''develop'', ''grow'' etc.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* + evolving<br />
** The situation deteriorated. <br />
* - evolving<br />
** John drew a circle.<br />
<br />
==Polysemy==<br />
<br />
The term situation is also used for<br />
* a specific concept in the formal semantic framework of [[situation semantics]] -- see [[situation (in situation semantics)]].<br />
<br />
==Synonyms==<br />
<br />
* [[state of affairs]] (e.g. Dik 1978, 1997; Van Valin & LaPolla 1997)<br />
* [[process]] (e.g. Halliday 1985)<br />
* [[event]] (e.g. Bohnemeyer 2002)<br />
* [[eventuality]]<br />
<br />
==Origin==<br />
<br />
Perhaps ''situation'' has first been used in this more technical semantic sense in Comrie (1976). According to Comrie (p.c. to Martin Haspelmath, May 2006), the usage in Comrie (1976) follows a suggestion of John Lyons's.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
* Declerck, R. (2006). ''The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase, Vol. 1: The Grammar of the English Tense System.'' Topics in English Linguistics 60. Berlin: Mouton. In collaboration with Susan Reed and Bert Capelle.<br />
*Bohnemeyer 2002<br />
*Comrie 1976<br />
*Dik 1978<br />
*Dik 1997<br />
*Halliday 1985<br />
*Lyons 1977<br />
*Lehmann 1991<br />
*Van Valin & LaPolla 1997<br />
<br />
==other languages==<br />
German [[Situation (de)|Situation]]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Aspect]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Situation&diff=10345Situation2009-10-21T19:17:34Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__<br />
<br />
In semantics, '''situation''' is used as a cover term for [[action]]s, [[process]]es and [[state]]s. The concept 'situation' is so basic that it is very difficult to define it through still more basic concepts. <br />
<br />
In describing languages, a fundamental constrast is between situations and [[participant]]s. Participants are generally expressed by [[noun phrase]]s, and situations are expressed by [[clause]]s. Often the term ''situation'' is also used to refer to just the verb's meaning (which can more precisely be called [[situation core]]).<br />
<br />
==Comments ==<br />
<br />
The term ''situation'' for this fundamental concept has been used prominently e.g. by Comrie (1976), Lyons (1977), and Lehmann (1991).<br />
::*''"There is, unfortunately, no satisfactory term that will cover states, on the one hand, and events, processes and actions, on the other. We will use the term situation for this purpose; and we will draw a high-level distinction between static and dynamic situations."'' (Lyons 1977:483)<br />
<br />
It has the disadvantage of suggesting a stative situation, but this disadvantage is shared by the competitor ''state of affairs'', and the other competitor event has the disadvantage of even more strongly suggesting a dynamic situation (as in "event vs. state").<br />
<br />
==Subtypes==<br />
<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of ontological properties like '(non)staticness', '(non)durativity', '(non)telicity', '(non)agentiveness', '(non)homogeneousness', '(non)transitionalness' and '(non)evolvingness' (Declerck 2006: 40).<br />
<br />
===Singulary vs. multiple situations===<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of their number of occurrence. A singulary situation consists of only one instance of the situation, while a multiple situation comprises more than one instance of the same sub-situation. There are three ways in which a situation can be multiple: <br />
# iterative multiple situations, i.e. there is a multiplicity of subsituations,<br />
# repeated multiple situations, which areusually indicated with an adjunct expressing how often the situation has occurred, and <br />
# serial multiple situations, where the occurrence of the sub-situation is unbounded. In the case of iterative multiple situations, the subsituations are [[achievement]]s, but the overall situation is an [[activity]]. Serial multiple situations can be [[state]]s, [[achievement]]s, [[accomplishment]]s or [[activity|activities]].<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* singulary<br />
** I was born on Good Friday.<br />
** The President has resigned.<br />
* iterative<br />
** She knocked at the door (more than once).<br />
* repeated<br />
** She saw him twice.<br />
** I met him several times.<br />
* serial<br />
** She usually mows the lawn herself. She usually gets up at six.<br />
<br />
===Static versus dynamic situations===<br />
<br />
Situations can be [[static]] (or '[[stative]]') or [[dynamic]]. Static situations exist or obtain and do not involve change, whereas dynamic situations by definition involve change. The difference between static and dynamic situations is reflected in linguistic difference between the relevant predicates (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 119ff).<br />
* The progressive aspect does not (normally) occur with static situations in English.<br />
* The simple present typically combines with static situations when it is used with present time reference, and only rarely with dynamic ones. <br />
* Pseudo-clefts with ''do'' only occur with dynamic situations.<br />
* Certain verbs can only be used to refer to a static situation: ''seem'', ''contain'', ''know'', ''consist of''<br />
<br />
Examples: <br />
* static<br />
** The flag is red.<br />
** The flag was red.<br />
** He likes her.<br />
** They believe in God.<br />
** I know the answer. <br />
* dynamic<br />
** He is playing tennis. She married Tom. What she did next was learn German. <br />
<br />
===Punctual versus durative situations===<br />
Punctual (=instantaneous) situations are happenings at a given point in time, while durative situations have a certain duration. Punctual situation predicates do not (normally) occur with aspectual verbs like ''begin'' and punctual situations do not (normally) go together with the progressive aspect. It is important to mention that duration can also be instantiated by the repetition of a (punctual) situation.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* punctual<br />
** I declare the meeting closed.<br />
** I found the key.<br />
** He had died.<br />
** She reached the top.<br />
* durative<br />
** He began to work.<br />
** He stopped snoring.<br />
** I was knocking at the door.<br />
<br />
=== Telic versus atelic situations===<br />
Telic situations have an inbuilt endpoint beyond which they cannot continue. Atelic situations have no such inherent terminal point. Atelic situations may combine with ''for''-adverbials (e.g. ''for an hour''), while telic situations combine with ''in''-adverbials (e.g. ''in an hour'').<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
<br />
* telic<br />
** She is writing a note.<br />
** We walked six kilometers in an hour.<br />
** We walked to London.<br />
* atelic<br />
** She is writing notes.<br />
** He walked for an hour. <br />
** She drove him safely<br />
<br />
=== Agentive versus nonagentive situations===<br />
A situation is agentive if any actualization of it is performed or instigated by an agent. Nonagentive situations simply happen without a implying a performer or instigator. <br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* agentive<br />
** John hit Bill on the nose. <br />
** She’s walking home now. <br />
** The Post office is suing us.<br />
* non-agentive<br />
** The accident happened around midnight. <br />
** Bill is an old man.<br />
<br />
===Homogeneous versus heterogeneous situations===<br />
A durative situation is homogeneous if its parts are of the same kind as the entire situation; otherwise the situation is heterogeneous. All static situations are homogeneous by definition. Dynamic situations are considered as homogeneous if they are conceptualized as consisting of a number of stages which are sub-situations of the same kind of an overall situation. Situations are considered as heterogeneous when the whole situation consists of sub-situations of different types.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* homogeneous<br />
** John drank beer.<br />
** Bill is a reliable worker.<br />
**John roamed the streets last night.<br />
* heterogeneous<br />
** John drank five glasses of beer.<br />
<br />
===(Non)transitional===<br />
A situation may also be (+) or (-) transitional. A situation is regarded as transitional if it consists of a single transition, conceived of as punctual, from one state into another. Transitional verbs are: ''die'', ''open'', ''kill'', ''pick up'', etc. <br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* + transitional<br />
** John died two weeks ago. Jim suddenly stopped talking<br />
* - transitional<br />
** Last week John was dying.<br />
<br />
===(Non)evolving===<br />
A situation may be evolving, meaning that it develops gradually; otherwise it is not evolving. Evolving situations are always dynamic, durative, nonagentive, and imply a gradual change; punctual situations and states are never evolving. Evolving verbs are: ''change'', ''develop'', ''grow'' etc.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* + evolving<br />
** The situation deteriorated. <br />
* - evolving<br />
** John drew a circle. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Polysemy==<br />
<br />
The term situation is also used for<br />
* a specific concept in the formal semantic framework of [[situation semantics]] -- see [[situation (in situation semantics)]].<br />
<br />
==Synonyms==<br />
<br />
* [[state of affairs]] (e.g. Dik 1978, 1997; Van Valin & LaPolla 1997)<br />
* [[process]] (e.g. Halliday 1985)<br />
* [[event]] (e.g. Bohnemeyer 2002)<br />
* [[eventuality]]<br />
<br />
==Origin==<br />
<br />
Perhaps ''situation'' has first been used in this more technical semantic sense in Comrie (1976). According to Comrie (p.c. to Martin Haspelmath, May 2006), the usage in Comrie (1976) follows a suggestion of John Lyons's.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
* Declerck, R. (2006). ''The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase, Vol. 1: The Grammar of the English Tense System.'' Topics in English Linguistics 60. Berlin: Mouton. In collaboration with Susan Reed and Bert Capelle.<br />
*Bohnemeyer 2002<br />
*Comrie 1976<br />
*Dik 1978<br />
*Dik 1997<br />
*Halliday 1985<br />
*Lyons 1977<br />
*Lehmann 1991<br />
*Van Valin & LaPolla 1997<br />
<br />
==other languages==<br />
German [[Situation (de)|Situation]]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Aspect]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Situation&diff=10344Situation2009-10-21T19:17:13Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>In semantics, '''situation''' is used as a cover term for [[action]]s, [[process]]es and [[state]]s. The concept 'situation' is so basic that it is very difficult to define it through still more basic concepts. <br />
<br />
In describing languages, a fundamental constrast is between situations and [[participant]]s. Participants are generally expressed by [[noun phrase]]s, and situations are expressed by [[clause]]s. Often the term ''situation'' is also used to refer to just the verb's meaning (which can more precisely be called [[situation core]]).<br />
<br />
==Comments ==<br />
<br />
The term ''situation'' for this fundamental concept has been used prominently e.g. by Comrie (1976), Lyons (1977), and Lehmann (1991).<br />
::*''"There is, unfortunately, no satisfactory term that will cover states, on the one hand, and events, processes and actions, on the other. We will use the term situation for this purpose; and we will draw a high-level distinction between static and dynamic situations."'' (Lyons 1977:483)<br />
<br />
It has the disadvantage of suggesting a stative situation, but this disadvantage is shared by the competitor ''state of affairs'', and the other competitor event has the disadvantage of even more strongly suggesting a dynamic situation (as in "event vs. state").<br />
<br />
==Subtypes==<br />
<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of ontological properties like '(non)staticness', '(non)durativity', '(non)telicity', '(non)agentiveness', '(non)homogeneousness', '(non)transitionalness' and '(non)evolvingness' (Declerck 2006: 40).<br />
<br />
===Singulary vs. multiple situations===<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of their number of occurrence. A singulary situation consists of only one instance of the situation, while a multiple situation comprises more than one instance of the same sub-situation. There are three ways in which a situation can be multiple: <br />
# iterative multiple situations, i.e. there is a multiplicity of subsituations,<br />
# repeated multiple situations, which areusually indicated with an adjunct expressing how often the situation has occurred, and <br />
# serial multiple situations, where the occurrence of the sub-situation is unbounded. In the case of iterative multiple situations, the subsituations are [[achievement]]s, but the overall situation is an [[activity]]. Serial multiple situations can be [[state]]s, [[achievement]]s, [[accomplishment]]s or [[activity|activities]].<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* singulary<br />
** I was born on Good Friday.<br />
** The President has resigned.<br />
* iterative<br />
** She knocked at the door (more than once).<br />
* repeated<br />
** She saw him twice.<br />
** I met him several times.<br />
* serial<br />
** She usually mows the lawn herself. She usually gets up at six.<br />
<br />
===Static versus dynamic situations===<br />
<br />
Situations can be [[static]] (or '[[stative]]') or [[dynamic]]. Static situations exist or obtain and do not involve change, whereas dynamic situations by definition involve change. The difference between static and dynamic situations is reflected in linguistic difference between the relevant predicates (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 119ff).<br />
* The progressive aspect does not (normally) occur with static situations in English.<br />
* The simple present typically combines with static situations when it is used with present time reference, and only rarely with dynamic ones. <br />
* Pseudo-clefts with ''do'' only occur with dynamic situations.<br />
* Certain verbs can only be used to refer to a static situation: ''seem'', ''contain'', ''know'', ''consist of''<br />
<br />
Examples: <br />
* static<br />
** The flag is red.<br />
** The flag was red.<br />
** He likes her.<br />
** They believe in God.<br />
** I know the answer. <br />
* dynamic<br />
** He is playing tennis. She married Tom. What she did next was learn German. <br />
<br />
===Punctual versus durative situations===<br />
Punctual (=instantaneous) situations are happenings at a given point in time, while durative situations have a certain duration. Punctual situation predicates do not (normally) occur with aspectual verbs like ''begin'' and punctual situations do not (normally) go together with the progressive aspect. It is important to mention that duration can also be instantiated by the repetition of a (punctual) situation.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* punctual<br />
** I declare the meeting closed.<br />
** I found the key.<br />
** He had died.<br />
** She reached the top.<br />
* durative<br />
** He began to work.<br />
** He stopped snoring.<br />
** I was knocking at the door.<br />
<br />
=== Telic versus atelic situations===<br />
Telic situations have an inbuilt endpoint beyond which they cannot continue. Atelic situations have no such inherent terminal point. Atelic situations may combine with ''for''-adverbials (e.g. ''for an hour''), while telic situations combine with ''in''-adverbials (e.g. ''in an hour'').<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
<br />
* telic<br />
** She is writing a note.<br />
** We walked six kilometers in an hour.<br />
** We walked to London.<br />
* atelic<br />
** She is writing notes.<br />
** He walked for an hour. <br />
** She drove him safely<br />
<br />
=== Agentive versus nonagentive situations===<br />
A situation is agentive if any actualization of it is performed or instigated by an agent. Nonagentive situations simply happen without a implying a performer or instigator. <br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* agentive<br />
** John hit Bill on the nose. <br />
** She’s walking home now. <br />
** The Post office is suing us.<br />
* non-agentive<br />
** The accident happened around midnight. <br />
** Bill is an old man.<br />
<br />
===Homogeneous versus heterogeneous situations===<br />
A durative situation is homogeneous if its parts are of the same kind as the entire situation; otherwise the situation is heterogeneous. All static situations are homogeneous by definition. Dynamic situations are considered as homogeneous if they are conceptualized as consisting of a number of stages which are sub-situations of the same kind of an overall situation. Situations are considered as heterogeneous when the whole situation consists of sub-situations of different types.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* homogeneous<br />
** John drank beer.<br />
** Bill is a reliable worker.<br />
**John roamed the streets last night.<br />
* heterogeneous<br />
** John drank five glasses of beer.<br />
<br />
===(Non)transitional===<br />
A situation may also be (+) or (-) transitional. A situation is regarded as transitional if it consists of a single transition, conceived of as punctual, from one state into another. Transitional verbs are: ''die'', ''open'', ''kill'', ''pick up'', etc. <br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* + transitional<br />
** John died two weeks ago. Jim suddenly stopped talking<br />
* - transitional<br />
** Last week John was dying.<br />
<br />
===(Non)evolving===<br />
A situation may be evolving, meaning that it develops gradually; otherwise it is not evolving. Evolving situations are always dynamic, durative, nonagentive, and imply a gradual change; punctual situations and states are never evolving. Evolving verbs are: ''change'', ''develop'', ''grow'' etc.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* + evolving<br />
** The situation deteriorated. <br />
* - evolving<br />
** John drew a circle. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Polysemy==<br />
<br />
The term situation is also used for<br />
* a specific concept in the formal semantic framework of [[situation semantics]] -- see [[situation (in situation semantics)]].<br />
<br />
==Synonyms==<br />
<br />
* [[state of affairs]] (e.g. Dik 1978, 1997; Van Valin & LaPolla 1997)<br />
* [[process]] (e.g. Halliday 1985)<br />
* [[event]] (e.g. Bohnemeyer 2002)<br />
* [[eventuality]]<br />
<br />
==Origin==<br />
<br />
Perhaps ''situation'' has first been used in this more technical semantic sense in Comrie (1976). According to Comrie (p.c. to Martin Haspelmath, May 2006), the usage in Comrie (1976) follows a suggestion of John Lyons's.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
* Declerck, R. (2006). ''The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase, Vol. 1: The Grammar of the English Tense System.'' Topics in English Linguistics 60. Berlin: Mouton. In collaboration with Susan Reed and Bert Capelle.<br />
*Bohnemeyer 2002<br />
*Comrie 1976<br />
*Dik 1978<br />
*Dik 1997<br />
*Halliday 1985<br />
*Lyons 1977<br />
*Lehmann 1991<br />
*Van Valin & LaPolla 1997<br />
<br />
==other languages==<br />
German [[Situation (de)|Situation]]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Aspect]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Situation&diff=10343Situation2009-10-21T18:54:13Z<p>Volker gast: /* Singulary vs. multiple situations */</p>
<hr />
<div>In semantics, '''situation''' is used as a cover term for [[action]]s, [[process]]es and [[state]]s. The concept 'situation' is so basic that it is very difficult to define it through still more basic concepts. <br />
<br />
In describing languages, a fundamental constrast is between situations and [[participant]]s. Participants are generally expressed by [[noun phrase]]s, and situations are expressed by [[clause]]s. Often the term ''situation'' is also used to refer to just the verb's meaning (which can more precisely be called [[situation core]]).<br />
<br />
==Comments ==<br />
<br />
The term ''situation'' for this fundamental concept has been used prominently e.g. by Comrie (1976), Lyons (1977), and Lehmann (1991).<br />
::*''"There is, unfortunately, no satisfactory term that will cover states, on the one hand, and events, processes and actions, on the other. We will use the term situation for this purpose; and we will draw a high-level distinction between static and dynamic situations."'' (Lyons 1977:483)<br />
<br />
It has the disadvantage of suggesting a stative situation, but this disadvantage is shared by the competitor ''state of affairs'', and the other competitor event has the disadvantage of even more strongly suggesting a dynamic situation (as in "event vs. state").<br />
<br />
==Subtypes==<br />
<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of ontological properties like '(non)staticness', '(non)durativity', '(non)telicity', '(non)agentiveness', '(non)homogeneousness', '(non)transitionalness' and '(non)evolvingness' (Declerck 2006: 40).<br />
<br />
===Singulary vs. multiple situations===<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of their number of occurrence. A singulary situation consists of only one instance of the situation, while a multiple situation comprises more than one instance of the same sub-situation. There are three ways in which a situation can be multiple: <br />
# iterative multiple situations, i.e. there is a multiplicity of subsituations,<br />
# repeated multiple situations, which areusually indicated with an adjunct expressing how often the situation has occurred, and <br />
# serial multiple situations, where the occurrence of the sub-situation is unbounded. In the case of iterative multiple situations, the subsituations are [[achievement]]s, but the overall situation is an [[activity]]. Serial multiple situations can be [[state]]s, [[achievement]]s, [[accomplishment]]s or [[activity|activities]].<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* singulary<br />
** I was born on Good Friday.<br />
** The President has resigned.<br />
* iterative<br />
** She knocked at the door (more than once).<br />
* repeated<br />
** She saw him twice.<br />
** I met him several times.<br />
* serial<br />
** She usually mows the lawn herself. She usually gets up at six.<br />
<br />
===Static versus dynamic situations===<br />
<br />
Situations can be [[static]] (or '[[stative]]') or [[dynamic]]. Static situations exist or obtain and do not involve change, whereas dynamic situations by definition involve change. The difference between static and dynamic situations is reflected in linguistic difference between the relevant predicates (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 119ff).<br />
* The progressive aspect does not (normally) occur with static situations in English.<br />
* The simple present typically combines with static situations when it is used with present time reference, and only rarely with dynamic ones. <br />
* Pseudo-clefts with ''do'' only occur with dynamic situations.<br />
* Certain verbs can only be used to refer to a static situation: ''seem'', ''contain'', ''know'', ''consist of''<br />
<br />
Examples: <br />
* static<br />
** The flag is red.<br />
** The flag was red.<br />
** He likes her.<br />
** They believe in God.<br />
** I know the answer. <br />
* dynamic<br />
** He is playing tennis. She married Tom. What she did next was learn German. <br />
<br />
===Punctual versus durative situations===<br />
Punctual (=instantaneous) situations are happenings at a given point in time, while durative situations have a certain duration. Punctual situation predicates do not (normally) occur with aspectual verbs like ''begin'' and punctual situations do not (normally) go together with the progressive aspect. It is important to mention that duration can also be instantiated by the repetition of a (punctual) situation.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* punctual<br />
** I declare the meeting closed.<br />
** I found the key.<br />
** He had died.<br />
** She reached the top.<br />
* durative<br />
** He began to work.<br />
** He stopped snoring.<br />
** I was knocking at the door.<br />
<br />
==Polysemy==<br />
<br />
The term situation is also used for<br />
* a specific concept in the formal semantic framework of [[situation semantics]] -- see [[situation (in situation semantics)]].<br />
<br />
==Synonyms==<br />
<br />
* [[state of affairs]] (e.g. Dik 1978, 1997; Van Valin & LaPolla 1997)<br />
* [[process]] (e.g. Halliday 1985)<br />
* [[event]] (e.g. Bohnemeyer 2002)<br />
* [[eventuality]]<br />
<br />
==Origin==<br />
<br />
Perhaps ''situation'' has first been used in this more technical semantic sense in Comrie (1976). According to Comrie (p.c. to Martin Haspelmath, May 2006), the usage in Comrie (1976) follows a suggestion of John Lyons's.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
* Declerck, R. (2006). ''The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase, Vol. 1: The Grammar of the English Tense System.'' Topics in English Linguistics 60. Berlin: Mouton. In collaboration with Susan Reed and Bert Capelle.<br />
*Bohnemeyer 2002<br />
*Comrie 1976<br />
*Dik 1978<br />
*Dik 1997<br />
*Halliday 1985<br />
*Lyons 1977<br />
*Lehmann 1991<br />
*Van Valin & LaPolla 1997<br />
<br />
==other languages==<br />
German [[Situation (de)|Situation]]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Aspect]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Situation&diff=10342Situation2009-10-21T18:53:48Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>In semantics, '''situation''' is used as a cover term for [[action]]s, [[process]]es and [[state]]s. The concept 'situation' is so basic that it is very difficult to define it through still more basic concepts. <br />
<br />
In describing languages, a fundamental constrast is between situations and [[participant]]s. Participants are generally expressed by [[noun phrase]]s, and situations are expressed by [[clause]]s. Often the term ''situation'' is also used to refer to just the verb's meaning (which can more precisely be called [[situation core]]).<br />
<br />
==Comments ==<br />
<br />
The term ''situation'' for this fundamental concept has been used prominently e.g. by Comrie (1976), Lyons (1977), and Lehmann (1991).<br />
::*''"There is, unfortunately, no satisfactory term that will cover states, on the one hand, and events, processes and actions, on the other. We will use the term situation for this purpose; and we will draw a high-level distinction between static and dynamic situations."'' (Lyons 1977:483)<br />
<br />
It has the disadvantage of suggesting a stative situation, but this disadvantage is shared by the competitor ''state of affairs'', and the other competitor event has the disadvantage of even more strongly suggesting a dynamic situation (as in "event vs. state").<br />
<br />
==Subtypes==<br />
<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of ontological properties like '(non)staticness', '(non)durativity', '(non)telicity', '(non)agentiveness', '(non)homogeneousness', '(non)transitionalness' and '(non)evolvingness' (Declerck 2006: 40).<br />
<br />
===Singulary vs. multiple situations===<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of their number of occurrence. A singulary situation consists of only one instance of the situation, while a multiple situation comprises more than one instance of the same sub-situation. There are three ways in which a situation can be multiple: <br />
# iterative multiple situations, i.e. there is a multiplicity of subsituations,<br />
# repeated multiple situations, which areusually indicated with an adjunct expressing how often the situation has occurred, and <br />
# serial multiple situations, where the occurrence of the sub-situation is unbounded. In the case of iterative multiple situations, the subsituations are [[achievement]]s, but the overall situation is an [[activity]]. Serial multiple situations can be [[state]]s, [[achievement]]s, [[accomplishment]]s or [[activities|activity]].<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* singulary<br />
** I was born on Good Friday.<br />
** The President has resigned.<br />
* iterative<br />
** She knocked at the door (more than once).<br />
* repeated<br />
** She saw him twice.<br />
** I met him several times.<br />
* serial<br />
** She usually mows the lawn herself. She usually gets up at six.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Static versus dynamic situations===<br />
<br />
Situations can be [[static]] (or '[[stative]]') or [[dynamic]]. Static situations exist or obtain and do not involve change, whereas dynamic situations by definition involve change. The difference between static and dynamic situations is reflected in linguistic difference between the relevant predicates (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 119ff).<br />
* The progressive aspect does not (normally) occur with static situations in English.<br />
* The simple present typically combines with static situations when it is used with present time reference, and only rarely with dynamic ones. <br />
* Pseudo-clefts with ''do'' only occur with dynamic situations.<br />
* Certain verbs can only be used to refer to a static situation: ''seem'', ''contain'', ''know'', ''consist of''<br />
<br />
Examples: <br />
* static<br />
** The flag is red.<br />
** The flag was red.<br />
** He likes her.<br />
** They believe in God.<br />
** I know the answer. <br />
* dynamic<br />
** He is playing tennis. She married Tom. What she did next was learn German. <br />
<br />
===Punctual versus durative situations===<br />
Punctual (=instantaneous) situations are happenings at a given point in time, while durative situations have a certain duration. Punctual situation predicates do not (normally) occur with aspectual verbs like ''begin'' and punctual situations do not (normally) go together with the progressive aspect. It is important to mention that duration can also be instantiated by the repetition of a (punctual) situation.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* punctual<br />
** I declare the meeting closed.<br />
** I found the key.<br />
** He had died.<br />
** She reached the top.<br />
* durative<br />
** He began to work.<br />
** He stopped snoring.<br />
** I was knocking at the door.<br />
<br />
==Polysemy==<br />
<br />
The term situation is also used for<br />
* a specific concept in the formal semantic framework of [[situation semantics]] -- see [[situation (in situation semantics)]].<br />
<br />
==Synonyms==<br />
<br />
* [[state of affairs]] (e.g. Dik 1978, 1997; Van Valin & LaPolla 1997)<br />
* [[process]] (e.g. Halliday 1985)<br />
* [[event]] (e.g. Bohnemeyer 2002)<br />
* [[eventuality]]<br />
<br />
==Origin==<br />
<br />
Perhaps ''situation'' has first been used in this more technical semantic sense in Comrie (1976). According to Comrie (p.c. to Martin Haspelmath, May 2006), the usage in Comrie (1976) follows a suggestion of John Lyons's.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
* Declerck, R. (2006). ''The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase, Vol. 1: The Grammar of the English Tense System.'' Topics in English Linguistics 60. Berlin: Mouton. In collaboration with Susan Reed and Bert Capelle.<br />
*Bohnemeyer 2002<br />
*Comrie 1976<br />
*Dik 1978<br />
*Dik 1997<br />
*Halliday 1985<br />
*Lyons 1977<br />
*Lehmann 1991<br />
*Van Valin & LaPolla 1997<br />
<br />
==other languages==<br />
German [[Situation (de)|Situation]]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Aspect]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Situation&diff=10341Situation2009-10-21T18:49:56Z<p>Volker gast: material has been inserted from a term paper by Carolin Jahn</p>
<hr />
<div>In semantics, '''situation''' is used as a cover term for [[action]]s, [[process]]es and [[state]]s. The concept 'situation' is so basic that it is very difficult to define it through still more basic concepts. <br />
<br />
In describing languages, a fundamental constrast is between situations and [[participant]]s. Participants are generally expressed by [[noun phrase]]s, and situations are expressed by [[clause]]s. Often the term ''situation'' is also used to refer to just the verb's meaning (which can more precisely be called [[situation core]]).<br />
<br />
==Comments ==<br />
<br />
The term ''situation'' for this fundamental concept has been used prominently e.g. by Comrie (1976), Lyons (1977), and Lehmann (1991).<br />
::*''"There is, unfortunately, no satisfactory term that will cover states, on the one hand, and events, processes and actions, on the other. We will use the term situation for this purpose; and we will draw a high-level distinction between static and dynamic situations."'' (Lyons 1977:483)<br />
<br />
It has the disadvantage of suggesting a stative situation, but this disadvantage is shared by the competitor ''state of affairs'', and the other competitor event has the disadvantage of even more strongly suggesting a dynamic situation (as in "event vs. state").<br />
<br />
==Subtypes==<br />
<br />
Situations can be classified in terms of ontological properties like '(non)staticness', '(non)durativity', '(non)telicity', '(non)agentiveness', '(non)homogeneousness', '(non)transitionalness' and '(non)evolvingness' (Declerck 2006: 40).<br />
<br />
===Static versus dynamic situations===<br />
<br />
Situations can be [[static]] (or '[[stative]]') or [[dynamic]]. Static situations exist or obtain and do not involve change, whereas dynamic situations by definition involve change. The difference between static and dynamic situations is reflected in linguistic difference between the relevant predicates (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 119ff).<br />
* The progressive aspect does not (normally) occur with static situations in English.<br />
* The simple present typically combines with static situations when it is used with present time reference, and only rarely with dynamic ones. <br />
* Pseudo-clefts with ''do'' only occur with dynamic situations.<br />
* Certain verbs can only be used to refer to a static situation: ''seem'', ''contain'', ''know'', ''consist of''<br />
<br />
Examples: <br />
* static<br />
** The flag is red.<br />
** The flag was red.<br />
** He likes her.<br />
** They believe in God.<br />
** I know the answer. <br />
* dynamic<br />
** He is playing tennis. She married Tom. What she did next was learn German. <br />
<br />
===Punctual versus durative situations===<br />
Punctual (=instantaneous) situations are happenings at a given point in time, while durative situations have a certain duration. Punctual situation predicates do not (normally) occur with aspectual verbs like ''begin'' and punctual situations do not (normally) go together with the progressive aspect. It is important to mention that duration can also be instantiated by the repetition of a (punctual) situation.<br />
<br />
Examples:<br />
* punctual<br />
** I declare the meeting closed.<br />
** I found the key.<br />
** He had died.<br />
** She reached the top.<br />
* durative<br />
** He began to work.<br />
** He stopped snoring.<br />
** I was knocking at the door.<br />
<br />
==Polysemy==<br />
<br />
The term situation is also used for<br />
* a specific concept in the formal semantic framework of [[situation semantics]] -- see [[situation (in situation semantics)]].<br />
<br />
==Synonyms==<br />
<br />
* [[state of affairs]] (e.g. Dik 1978, 1997; Van Valin & LaPolla 1997)<br />
* [[process]] (e.g. Halliday 1985)<br />
* [[event]] (e.g. Bohnemeyer 2002)<br />
* [[eventuality]]<br />
<br />
==Origin==<br />
<br />
Perhaps ''situation'' has first been used in this more technical semantic sense in Comrie (1976). According to Comrie (p.c. to Martin Haspelmath, May 2006), the usage in Comrie (1976) follows a suggestion of John Lyons's.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
* Declerck, R. (2006). ''The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase, Vol. 1: The Grammar of the English Tense System.'' Topics in English Linguistics 60. Berlin: Mouton. In collaboration with Susan Reed and Bert Capelle.<br />
*Bohnemeyer 2002<br />
*Comrie 1976<br />
*Dik 1978<br />
*Dik 1997<br />
*Halliday 1985<br />
*Lyons 1977<br />
*Lehmann 1991<br />
*Van Valin & LaPolla 1997<br />
<br />
==other languages==<br />
German [[Situation (de)|Situation]]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Aspect]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Major_theories_of_tense&diff=10340Major theories of tense2009-10-21T18:21:56Z<p>Volker gast: extracted from a term paper by Nadin Wiegandt</p>
<hr />
<div>Theories of temporal reference have been provided by:<br />
* [[Comrie's (1985) theory of tense|Comrie (1985)]]<br />
* [[Declerk's (2006) theory of tense|Declerck (2006)]]<br />
* [[Klein's (1994) theory of tense|Klein (1994)]]<br />
* [[Reichenbach's (1947) theory of tense|Reichenbach (1947)]]<br />
* [[Huddleston and Pullum's (2002) analysis of tense|Huddleston and Pullum (2002)]]<br />
<br />
===Comparison===<br />
The theories of Reichenbach (1947), Comrie (1985), Klein (1994) and Huddleston and Pullum (2002) are based on comparable primitives<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
!Huddleston&Pullum (2002) !! Reichenbach (1947)/ Comrie (1985) !!Klein (1994)<br />
|-<br />
|T<sub>r</sub> ||R ||TT<br />
|-<br />
|T<sub>sit</sub> ||E ||T<sub>SIT</sub><br />
|-<br />
|T<sub>d/T<sub>o</sub> ||S ||TU<br />
|}</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Portal:Tense_and_aspect&diff=10339Portal:Tense and aspect2009-10-21T18:17:30Z<p>Volker gast: /* Theories of tense */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| border="0" style="padding: 0px; border:solid 1px #000080; background-color:blue" width="100%" cellspacing="0"<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| valign="top" width="66%" colspan="4" |<br />
<br />
<div style="font-size:180%; text-align: center; margin-top:10px;"><br />
{| border="0" style="padding: 5px; border:none 1px #000080; background-color:blue" width="100%" cellspacing="10"<br />
|<br />
|<br />
<font color="white">This portal presents the most central topics in the study of<br>tense and aspect.</font><br />
|<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
|-<br />
<br />
{| border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="10" style="margin-top:1em; padding:0.2em; background-color:#f0f0f0; border:solid 1px #000080;"<br />
|-<br />
| width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;" |<br />
<br />
=='''<div style="font-size:80%;">Fundamental notions</div>'''==<br />
<br />
[[aktionsart]] -- [[aspect]] -- [[event]] -- [[situation]] -- [[tense]] -- [[topic time]] -- [[situation time]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Temporal categories</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[[absolute tense]] -- [[absolute-relative tense]] -- [[future tense]] -- [[past tense]] -- [[present tense]] -- [[relative tense]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Theories of tense</div>''' ==<br />
[[Major theories of tense|Overview: Major theories of tense]]<br />
<br />
[[Comrie's (1985) theory of tense|Comrie (1985)]] -- [[Declerk's (2006) theory of tense|Declerck (2006)]] -- [[Klein's (1994) theory of tense|Klein (1994)]] -- [[Reichenbach's (1947) theory of tense|Reichenbach (1947)]] -- [[Huddleston and Pullum's (2002) analysis of tense|Huddleston and Pullum (2002)]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Tenses of English</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[[Future progressive]] -- [[going to-future|''going to''-future]] -- <br />
[[Past Perfect]] -- [[Perfect Progressive]] -- [[Present Perfect]] -- [[Progressive aspect]] -- [[Simple Past]] -- [[Simple Present]] -- [[will-future|''will''-future]]<br />
<br />
| style="vertical-align:top;" |<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Aspectual categories</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[[continuous aspect]] -- [[habitual aspect]] -- [[imperfective aspect]] -- [[perfective aspect]] -- [[progressive aspect]] <br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Theories of aspect</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[[Comrie (1976)]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Categories of aktionsart</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[[accomplishment]] -- [[achievement]] -- [[activity]] -- [[aktionsart]] -- [[atelic]] -- [[dymanic]] -- [[occurrence]] -- [[process]] -- [[punctual]] -- [[telic]] -- [[state]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Ressources</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~binnick/old%20tense/BIBLIO.html Robert Binnick's Annotated Bibliography of Contemporary Research on Tense, Aspect, Aktionsart, and Related Areas]<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:En]]<br />
[[Category:Portal|Tense and aspect]]<br />
[[Category:Tense and aspect|!]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Klein%27s_(1994)_theory_of_tense&diff=10338Klein's (1994) theory of tense2009-10-21T18:15:41Z<p>Volker gast: extracted from a term paper by Nadin Wiegandt</p>
<hr />
<div>Klein (1994) uses three time spans for the analysis of tense: TU (time of utterance), T<sub>Sit</sub> (the time of situation) and TT (the [[topic time]]). The Topic Time "IS THE TIME SPAN TO WHICH THE SPEAKER’S CLAIM ON THIS OCCASION IS CONFINED" (Klein 1994: 4). For example, if a judge asksa witness: "What did you notice when you looked into the room?" and the witness answers: "There was a book on the table. It was in Russian", the Topic Time is the point in time at which the witnessed looked into the room. <br />
<br />
Klein furthermore distinguishes three situation types:<br />
* [[0-state predicate]]s include states that cannot be changed, e.g. "2+2=4"<br />
* [[1-state predicate]]s include states that can change, e.g. "The light was on."<br />
* [[2-state predicate]]s are [[dynamic]], e.g. "John opend the door". <br />
<br />
In Klein's theory tense expresses a relation between TT and TU; possible relations are INCL(uded in), AFTER, BEFORE. The major tense relations can thus be defined as follows:<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
! !! Schema !!Tense !! Example<br />
|-<br />
|1. ||TU INCL TT || present tense || There was a book on the table.<br />
|-<br />
|2. ||TU AFTER TT|| past tense|| John was in the garden.<br />
|-<br />
|3. ||TU BEFORE TT ||future tense ||I will see John tomorrow.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Literature==<br />
* Klein, Wolfgang (1994). ''Time in Language.'' London: Routledge.<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Tense]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Huddleston_and_Pullum%27s_(2002)_analysis_of_tense&diff=10337Huddleston and Pullum's (2002) analysis of tense2009-10-21T18:06:56Z<p>Volker gast: </p>
<hr />
<div>According to Huddelston and Pullum (2002), English has a two-dimensional systems of temporal reference which comprises the categories [[primary tense]] and [[secondary tense]]. [[Primary tense]]s expresses the distinction between past and present time. For example, "She went to school" contains a verb in the preterite tense (''went''). In "She goes to school" the tense of the verb is present (cf. Huddleston and Pullum 20022: 116).<br />
<br />
[[Secondary tense]] distinguishes perfect from non-perfect forms, the former being marked with the auxiliary ''have''. For example, "He may have known her" is a perfect form, whereas "He may know her" is unmarked (Huddleston and Pullum 20022: 116). <br />
<br />
Tense is regarded as a relationship between the time referred to and the time of orientation. <br />
<br />
==Primary Tense==<br />
===Parameters of analysis===<br />
* Time referred to (T<sub>r</sub>): time span about which information is provided <br />
* Time of orientation (T<sub>o</sub>): reference point, usually time of utterance/ moment of speech<br />
* Time of the situation (T<sub>sit</sub>): time span covered by the situation <br />
* Deictic time (T<sub>d</sub>): type of encoding or decoding, normally the moment of utterance <br />
<br />
====Relationship between Tr and T<sub>0</sub>====<br />
* past time T<sub>r</sub> < T<sub>o</sub> (anterior)<br />
* present time T<sub>r</sub> = T<sub>o</sub> (simultaneous)<br />
* future time T<sub>r</sub> > T<sub>o</sub> (posterior)<br />
<br />
====Examples====<br />
(1) I met Michael at seven in the morning. (T<sub>r</sub> < T<sub>o</sub>)<br />
<br />
(2) I hereby confirm you husband and wife. (T<sub>r</sub> = T<sub>o</sub>) <br />
<br />
(3) I’ll take a nap at ten. (T<sub>r</sub> > T<sub>o</sub>)<br />
<br />
* Time of situation (T<sub>sit</sub>) is not necessarily identical to time referred to (T<sub>r</sub>) <br />
<br />
(4) What did you do between four and five o’clock?<br><br />
(4a) I was sleeping.<br><br />
(4b) I slept. <br />
<br />
* Present tense: In most cases T<sub>o</sub> is contained in T<sub>sit</sub> <br />
<br />
(5) I live in Jena. <br />
<br />
* Deictic time is usually the moment of utterance. Under specific circumstances it can be shifted to the ‘decoding time’: <br />
<br />
(6) You are now leaving West Berlin. <br />
<br />
==Secondary Tense: The perfect ==<br />
<br />
Parameters of analysis: the same parameters as for primary tense<br />
<br />
===The perfect as a ‘non-deictic past tense’===<br />
<br />
* it is a past tense because it is used when T<sub>r</sub> <T<sub>o</sub>; <br />
* it is non-deictic because T<sub>o</sub> is not (necessarily) identified with T<sub>d</sub>. <br />
<br />
(1) He was believed [to have written it the previous week]. T<sub>r</sub> <T<sub>o</sub> (past)<br />
<br />
(2) He is believed [to have written it last week] T<sub>r</sub> <T<sub>o</sub> (present)<br />
<br />
(3) He hopes [to have written it by next week]. T<sub>r</sub> <T<sub>o</sub> (future)<br />
<br />
* One To functions as a time of orientation for a given T<sub>r</sub>; this T<sub>r</sub> is at the same time the T<sub>o</sub> for another T<sub>r</sub>. <br />
<br />
(4) Yesterday, he was believed to have written it the previous week. (Huddelston and Pullum 2002: 140). <br />
<br />
===Uses the of the perfect===<br />
<br />
* The continuative perfect/universal (=states)<br />
<br />
(5) She has lived in Berlin ever since she married. <br />
<br />
* The experiential perfect/existential (= occurrences within the time span up to now)<br />
<br />
(6) His sister has been up Mont Blanc twice.<br />
<br />
* The resultative perfect (=change of state)<br />
<br />
(7) She has broken her leg. <br />
<br />
* The perfect of recent past (=news announcements)<br />
<br />
(8) She has recently/just been to Paris. (Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 141f).<br />
<br />
==Literature==<br />
* Huddleston, Rodney D., Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002). ''The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.'' Cambridge: CUP.<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Tense]]</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Huddleston_and_Pullum%27s_(2002)_analysis_of_tense&diff=10336Huddleston and Pullum's (2002) analysis of tense2009-10-21T18:02:34Z<p>Volker gast: extracted from a term paper by nadin Wiegandt</p>
<hr />
<div>According to Huddelston and Pullum (2002), English has a two-dimensional systems of temporal reference which comprises the categories [[primary tense]] and [[secondary tense]]. [[Primary tense]]s expresses the distinction between past and present time. For example, "She went to school" contains a verb in the preterite tense (''went''). In "She goes to school" the tense of the verb is present (cf. Huddleston and Pullum 20022: 116).<br />
<br />
[[Secondary tense]] distinguishes perfect from non-perfect forms, the former being marked with the auxiliary ''have''. For example, "He may have known her" is a perfect form, whereas "He may know her" is unmarked (Huddleston and Pullum 20022: 116). <br />
<br />
Tense is regarded as a relationship between the time referred to and the time of orientation. <br />
<br />
==Primary Tense==<br />
===Parameters of analysis===<br />
* Time referred to (Tr): time span about which information is provided <br />
* Time of orientation (To): reference point, usually time of utterance/ moment of speech<br />
* Time of the situation (Tsit): time span covered by the situation <br />
* Deictic time (Td): type of encoding or decoding, normally the moment of utterance <br />
<br />
====Relationship between Tr and T<sub>0</sub>====<br />
* past time Tr < To (anterior)<br />
* present time Tr = To (simultaneous)<br />
* future time Tr > To (posterior)<br />
<br />
====Examples====<br />
(1) I met Michael at seven in the morning. (Tr <To) <br />
(2) I hereby confirm you husband and wife. (Tr = To) <br />
(3) I’ll take a nap at ten. (Tr > To)<br />
<br />
* Time of situation (Tsit) is not necessarily identical to time referred to (Tr) <br />
<br />
(4) What did you do between four and five o’clock? <br />
(4a) I was sleeping.<br />
(4b) I slept. <br />
<br />
* Present tense: In most cases To is contained in T sit <br />
<br />
(5) I live in Jena. <br />
<br />
* Deictic time is usually the moment of utterance. Under specific circumstances it can be shifted to the ‘decoding time’: <br />
<br />
(6) You are now leaving West Berlin. <br />
<br />
==Secondary Tense: The perfect ==<br />
<br />
Parameters of analysis: the same parameters as for primary tense<br />
<br />
===The perfect as a ‘non-deictic past tense’===<br />
<br />
* it is a past tense because it is used when Tr <To; <br />
* it is non-deictic because To is not (necessarily) identified with Td. <br />
<br />
(1) He was believed [to have written it the previous week]. Tr <To (past)<br />
(2) He is believed [to have written it last week] Tr <To (present)<br />
(3) He hopes [to have written it by next week]. Tr <To (future)<br />
<br />
* One To functions as a time of orientation for a given Tr; this Tr is at the same time the To for another Tr. <br />
<br />
(4) Yesterday, he was believed to have written it the previous week. ( Huddelston/ Pullum 2002: 140). <br />
<br />
===Uses the of the perfect===<br />
<br />
* The continuative perfect/ universal (=states)<br />
<br />
(5) She has lived in Berlin ever since she married. <br />
<br />
* The experiential perfect/ existential (= occurrences within the time span up to now)<br />
<br />
(6) His sister has been up Mont Blanc twice.<br />
<br />
* The resultative perfect (=change of state)<br />
<br />
(7) She has broken her leg. <br />
<br />
* The perfect of recent past (=news announcements)<br />
<br />
(8) She has recently/just been to Paris. (Huddleston/Pullum 2002: 141f).</div>Volker gasthttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Portal:Tense_and_aspect&diff=10335Portal:Tense and aspect2009-10-21T17:46:19Z<p>Volker gast: /* Theories of tense */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| border="0" style="padding: 0px; border:solid 1px #000080; background-color:blue" width="100%" cellspacing="0"<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| valign="top" width="66%" colspan="4" |<br />
<br />
<div style="font-size:180%; text-align: center; margin-top:10px;"><br />
{| border="0" style="padding: 5px; border:none 1px #000080; background-color:blue" width="100%" cellspacing="10"<br />
|<br />
|<br />
<font color="white">This portal presents the most central topics in the study of<br>tense and aspect.</font><br />
|<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
|-<br />
<br />
{| border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="10" style="margin-top:1em; padding:0.2em; background-color:#f0f0f0; border:solid 1px #000080;"<br />
|-<br />
| width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;" |<br />
<br />
=='''<div style="font-size:80%;">Fundamental notions</div>'''==<br />
<br />
[[aktionsart]] -- [[aspect]] -- [[event]] -- [[situation]] -- [[tense]] -- [[topic time]] -- [[situation time]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Temporal categories</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[[absolute tense]] -- [[absolute-relative tense]] -- [[future tense]] -- [[past tense]] -- [[present tense]] -- [[relative tense]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Theories of tense</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[[Comrie's (1985) theory of tense|Comrie (1985)]] -- [[Declerk's (2006) theory of tense|Declerck (2006)]] -- [[Klein's (1994) theory of tense|Klein (1994)]] -- [[Reichenbach's (1947) theory of tense|Reichenbach (1947)]] -- [[Huddleston and Pullum's (2002) analysis of tense|Huddleston and Pullum (2002)]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Tenses of English</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[[Future progressive]] -- [[going to-future|''going to''-future]] -- <br />
[[Past Perfect]] -- [[Perfect Progressive]] -- [[Present Perfect]] -- [[Progressive aspect]] -- [[Simple Past]] -- [[Simple Present]] -- [[will-future|''will''-future]]<br />
<br />
| style="vertical-align:top;" |<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Aspectual categories</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[[continuous aspect]] -- [[habitual aspect]] -- [[imperfective aspect]] -- [[perfective aspect]] -- [[progressive aspect]] <br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Theories of aspect</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[[Comrie (1976)]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Categories of aktionsart</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[[accomplishment]] -- [[achievement]] -- [[activity]] -- [[aktionsart]] -- [[atelic]] -- [[dymanic]] -- [[occurrence]] -- [[process]] -- [[punctual]] -- [[telic]] -- [[state]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Ressources</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~binnick/old%20tense/BIBLIO.html Robert Binnick's Annotated Bibliography of Contemporary Research on Tense, Aspect, Aktionsart, and Related Areas]<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:En]]<br />
[[Category:Portal|Tense and aspect]]<br />
[[Category:Tense and aspect|!]]</div>Volker gast