Neste trabalho, analiso o fenômeno conhecido como \"uso adverbial do adjetivo\" (ou \"adjetivos adverbiais\"). Tal fenômeno, comum no Português do Brasil (PB), ocorre em sentenças como A Maria falou claro (cf. A Maria falou claramente) e levanta a questão sobre o estatuto categorial do modificador, na medida em que este apresenta forma de adjetivo, mas comportamento de advérbio. Alguns autores afirmam que se trata, de fato, de advérbios: os adjetivos sofrem um processo morfológico chamado de derivação imprópria ou conversão, que consiste na \"transposição de uma palavra de uma classe gramatical para outra\" (Basílio, 2000: 60). Outros autores, como Carnie (2000) e Negrão, Scher e Viotti (2003), sugerem que adjetivos e advérbios constituem uma única categoria gramatical. Um dos argumentos usados pelos autores é o fato de adjetivos e advérbios desempenharem o mesmo papel na sentença: atribuem propriedades aos itens que eles modificam. Essas e outras propostas existentes na literatura têm bons argumentos a seu favor. Contudo, ao olharmos para os dados, todas essas propostas se tornam insatisfatórias, na medida em que nenhuma delas dá conta de explicar os seguintes fatos da língua: em alguns contextos, as formas adverbial e adjetival são possíveis (A Maria falou claro/claramente); em outros contextos, apenas a forma adjetival é possível (A Maria namora firme/*firmemente), e ainda em outros, apenas a forma adverbial (Os soldados resistiram heroicamente/*heróico). A partir de um modelo gerativista do estudo da linguagem, é pertinente investigar não apenas o estatuto categorial dos itens lexicais em questão, mas também o que há na estrutura subjacente dessas sentenças que determina o contexto em que esses itens podem ou não ser utilizados. Seguindo a proposta de Lobato (2005), proponho que os chamados adjetivos adverbiais são, de fato, adjetivos, na medida em que eles modificam um nome implícito na sentença nomeadamente, o objeto cognato relacionado ao verbo, ou um indivíduo denotado pela raiz do verbo, nos termos de Levinson (2006). De fato, os contextos de produtividade das construções com objetos cognatos eventivos (Leung, 2006) são os mesmos contextos de produtividade dos adjetivos adverbiais. Além disso, apesar das aparências, o comportamento dos itens lexicais em questão não é tão adverbial quanto parece: ao contrário dos advérbios, eles não flutuam na sentença, mas têm que ser, obrigatoriamente, adjacentes ao verbo. Outro fator é que, via de regra, eles não podem co-ocorrer com um objeto temático, o que deveria ser possível se esses itens fossem, de fato, adverbiais. / In this work, I analyze the phenomenon known as \"the adverbial use of adjective\" (or \"adverbial adjectives\"). Such phenomenon, common in Brazilian Portuguese (PB), occurs in sentences such as A Maria falou claro (cf. A Maria falou claramente) and raises a question about the categorial status of the modifier, since it presents adjective form, but behaves like an adverb. Some authors say that, in fact, they are adverbs: the adjectives undergo a morphological process called improper derivation or conversion, which consists of the \"shift of a word from a grammatical class to another\" (Basílio, 2006:60). Some other authors, such as Carnie (2000) and Negrão, Scher e Viotti (2003), suggest that adjectives and adverbs belong to an unique grammar category. One of the arguments used by the authors is the fact that adjectives and adverbs carry out the same role in sentence: they attribute properties to the items modified by them. These and other existing suggestions in literature have good arguments on their side. However, when we look at some language data, all these suggestions become unsatisfactory, since none of them can explain the following facts: in some contexts, both the adverbial and adjectival forms is possible (A Maria falou claro/claramente); in other contexts, only the adjectival form is possible (A Maria namora firme/*firmemente), and still in others contexts, only the adverbial form can appear in the sentence (Os soldados resistiram heroicamente/*heróico). Based on a generative model for grammar studies, it is necessary to investigate not only the categorial status of the lexical items in question, but also what there is in the subjacent structure of these sentences, that determines the context in which they can or cannot be used. In this work, I suggest that the adverbial adjectives are, in fact, adjectives, since they can modify either an implicit noun in the sentence, namely, the cognate object related to the verb, or, in Levinson (2006)\'s terms, an individual denoted by the same root as the verb\'s. In fact, the productivity contexts of these constructions with eventive cognate objects (Leung, 2006) are the same productivity contexts where one can find the adverbial adjectives. Besides, the behavior of the lexical items in question is not so adverbial as it looks: differenty from adverbs, they don\'t float in the sentence, but they are, obligatorily, adjacent to the verb. Another important factor is that, generally, they can\'t occur with a thematic object, what should be possible if these items were, in fact, adverbs.

Neste trabalho, analiso o fenômeno conhecido como \"uso adverbial do adjetivo\" (ou \"adjetivos adverbiais\"). Tal fenômeno, comum no Português do Brasil (PB), ocorre em sentenças como A Maria falou claro (cf. A Maria falou claramente) e levanta a questão sobre o estatuto categorial do modificador, na medida em que este apresenta forma de adjetivo, mas comportamento de advérbio. Alguns autores afirmam que se trata, de fato, de advérbios: os adjetivos sofrem um processo morfológico chamado de derivação imprópria ou conversão, que consiste na \"transposição de uma palavra de uma classe gramatical para outra\" (Basílio, 2000: 60). Outros autores, como Carnie (2000) e Negrão, Scher e Viotti (2003), sugerem que adjetivos e advérbios constituem uma única categoria gramatical. Um dos argumentos usados pelos autores é o fato de adjetivos e advérbios desempenharem o mesmo papel na sentença: atribuem propriedades aos itens que eles modificam. Essas e outras propostas existentes na literatura têm bons argumentos a seu favor. Contudo, ao olharmos para os dados, todas essas propostas se tornam insatisfatórias, na medida em que nenhuma delas dá conta de explicar os seguintes fatos da língua: em alguns contextos, as formas adverbial e adjetival são possíveis (A Maria falou claro/claramente); em outros contextos, apenas a forma adjetival é possível (A Maria namora firme/*firmemente), e ainda em outros, apenas a forma adverbial (Os soldados resistiram heroicamente/*heróico). A partir de um modelo gerativista do estudo da linguagem, é pertinente investigar não apenas o estatuto categorial dos itens lexicais em questão, mas também o que há na estrutura subjacente dessas sentenças que determina o contexto em que esses itens podem ou não ser utilizados. Seguindo a proposta de Lobato (2005), proponho que os chamados adjetivos adverbiais são, de fato, adjetivos, na medida em que eles modificam um nome implícito na sentença nomeadamente, o objeto cognato relacionado ao verbo, ou um indivíduo denotado pela raiz do verbo, nos termos de Levinson (2006). De fato, os contextos de produtividade das construções com objetos cognatos eventivos (Leung, 2006) são os mesmos contextos de produtividade dos adjetivos adverbiais. Além disso, apesar das aparências, o comportamento dos itens lexicais em questão não é tão adverbial quanto parece: ao contrário dos advérbios, eles não flutuam na sentença, mas têm que ser, obrigatoriamente, adjacentes ao verbo. Outro fator é que, via de regra, eles não podem co-ocorrer com um objeto temático, o que deveria ser possível se esses itens fossem, de fato, adverbiais. / In this work, I analyze the phenomenon known as \"the adverbial use of adjective\" (or \"adverbial adjectives\"). Such phenomenon, common in Brazilian Portuguese (PB), occurs in sentences such as A Maria falou claro (cf. A Maria falou claramente) and raises a question about the categorial status of the modifier, since it presents adjective form, but behaves like an adverb. Some authors say that, in fact, they are adverbs: the adjectives undergo a morphological process called improper derivation or conversion, which consists of the \"shift of a word from a grammatical class to another\" (Basílio, 2006:60). Some other authors, such as Carnie (2000) and Negrão, Scher e Viotti (2003), suggest that adjectives and adverbs belong to an unique grammar category. One of the arguments used by the authors is the fact that adjectives and adverbs carry out the same role in sentence: they attribute properties to the items modified by them. These and other existing suggestions in literature have good arguments on their side. However, when we look at some language data, all these suggestions become unsatisfactory, since none of them can explain the following facts: in some contexts, both the adverbial and adjectival forms is possible (A Maria falou claro/claramente); in other contexts, only the adjectival form is possible (A Maria namora firme/*firmemente), and still in others contexts, only the adverbial form can appear in the sentence (Os soldados resistiram heroicamente/*heróico). Based on a generative model for grammar studies, it is necessary to investigate not only the categorial status of the lexical items in question, but also what there is in the subjacent structure of these sentences, that determines the context in which they can or cannot be used. In this work, I suggest that the adverbial adjectives are, in fact, adjectives, since they can modify either an implicit noun in the sentence, namely, the cognate object related to the verb, or, in Levinson (2006)\'s terms, an individual denoted by the same root as the verb\'s. In fact, the productivity contexts of these constructions with eventive cognate objects (Leung, 2006) are the same productivity contexts where one can find the adverbial adjectives. Besides, the behavior of the lexical items in question is not so adverbial as it looks: differenty from adverbs, they don\'t float in the sentence, but they are, obligatorily, adjacent to the verb. Another important factor is that, generally, they can\'t occur with a thematic object, what should be possible if these items were, in fact, adverbs.

Language serves as an essential resource to learn about cause and effect throughout childhood. Causal adverbial sentences use causal conjunctions (e.g., because, so) to join two clauses to express cause-effect relationships (Diessel & Hetterle, 2011). Causal adverbial sentences are frequently used to explain causal relationships in academic contexts, such as elementary school science and social studies classes (Kinzie et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2014). Children with specific language impairment (SLI) are at risk for failure in these academically relevant language skills. Here, a multiple probe design was used to examine the effect of language intervention focused on causal adverbials on both causal adverbials and acquisition of academic content for preschool/kindergarten children with SLI. Child performance on sentence elicitation probes of causal adverbials and an untreated control structure were analyzed. Six of seven participants exhibited gains at some level in production of causal adverbials containing because. Performance on daily probes of science content learning, and science unit tests indicate that participants are able to learn science content, but the magnitude of gains may not relate to skill in causal adverbial production. Language intervention for young children with SLI can effectively treat complex syntactic targets such as causal adverbials in the context of science instruction, but it is unclear whether this can affect science content learning.

<p>Adverbial connectors join together sentences and units in a text to signal logical relations. Appropriately used, they can help the reader to make sense of the text. The usage of adverbial connectors can create problems for foreign language learners, and is often shown as under- , over- and misuse of connectors. In this study, a quantitative analysis of connector usage of advanced EFL learners’ and native speakers’ student writing is presented. For the current corpus-based study, three sub-corpora of the SUSEC (<em>Stockholm University Student English Corpus</em>) were chosen. The sample includes 164 linguistic essays from students at Stockholm University and 82 linguistic essays from students at King’s College in London. The analysis, where the learners’ connector usage is compared to that of native speakers, is based on 69 connectors. The results show that both the learners and the native speakers rely on a rather small set of these connectors in their writing. As a group, the advanced Swedish EFL learners underuse connectors in their written production. Additionally, the learners significantly overuse 12 and underuse 6 connectors. Similarities between the learners and the native speakers were found in the positioning of the connectors. Both groups prefer the most frequently used connectors in the medial position of a sentence, and prefer mostly the same set of connectors in the different positions of a sentence, although some differences in the positioning were also found. The findings create a basis for future research where a qualitative analysis of the connector usage could be carried out in order to increase knowledge of the interlanguage of the learners. The findings could also be used for pedagogical purposes.</p>

In this paper we compare the behaviour of adverbs of frequency (de Swart 1993) like usually with the behaviour of adverbs of quantity like for the most part in sentences that contain plural definites. We show that sentences containing the former type of Q-adverb evidence that Quantificational Variability Effects (Berman 1991) come about as an indirect effect of quantification over situations: in order for quantificational variability readings to arise, these sentences have to obey two newly observed constraints that clearly set them apart from sentences containing corresponding quantificational DPs, and that can plausibly be explained under the assumption that quantification over (the atomic parts of) complex situations is involved. Concerning sentences with the latter type of Q-adverb, on the other hand, such evidence is lacking: with respect to the constraints just mentioned, they behave like sentences that contain corresponding quantificational DPs. We take this as evidence that Q-adverbs like for the most part do not quantify over the atomic parts of sum eventualities in the cases under discussion (as claimed by Nakanishi and Romero (2004)), but rather over the atomic parts of the respective sum individuals.

In this paper we compare the behaviour of adverbs of frequency (de Swart 1993) like usually with the behaviour of adverbs of quantity like for the most part in sentences that contain plural definites. We show that sentences containing the former type of Q-adverb evidence that Quantificational Variability Effects (Berman 1991) come about as an indirect effect of quantification over situations: in order for quantificational variability readings to arise, these sentences have to obey two newly observed constraints that clearly set them apart from sentences containing corresponding quantificational DPs, and that can plausibly be explained under the assumption that quantification over (the atomic parts of) complex situations is involved. Concerning sentences with the latter type of Q-adverb, on the other hand, such evidence is lacking: with respect to the constraints just mentioned, they behave like sentences that contain corresponding quantificational DPs. We take this as evidence that Q-adverbs like for the most part do not quantify over the atomic parts of sum eventualities in the cases under discussion (as claimed by Nakanishi and Romero (2004)), but rather over the atomic parts of the respective sum individuals.

<p>Abstract</p><p>Translation is not an easy task. There is a plethora of problems and difficulties which needs to be tackled in the process of translating a text from one language to another. This analysis concentrates on three of them – terminology, connectors and cultural aspects. The study is based on the Swedish translation of an English text concerning the medical and ritual use of chocolate in ancient Native American cultures as well as in Europe during the colonial era. The main problem encountered in the translation of this text was how to generalize it so it would suit the Swedish public but still maintain the level of formality of the source text. The specialized terminology found belongs to the fields of medicine and botany and these terms were often explained or replaced with more common words. A couple of the cultural aspects were also explained, since, for example, the cultural area Mesoamerica may not be known to the target readers unless they are knowledgeable in anthropology or archaeology. This made the target text somewhat less formal than the original so, to compensate, the translation of the adverbial connectors however and thus were on occasion translated with the more formal Swedish emellertid and således.</p>

This thesis is a sociolinguistic study of Preterit and Present Perfect (PP) usage in contemporary and earlier Argentinian River Plate Spanish (ARPS). The data analyzed stem from a 244,034-word corpus collected for the purposes of the study, including contemporary casual conversation, sociolinguistic interviews, participant observation, written questionnaires, and newspapers spanning the 19th–21st centuries. / The study is motivated by previous claims that in Latin America the PP is restricted to contexts that extend into the present time, resembling Peninsular medieval and Renaissance usage (e.g. Lope Blanch 1972: 138; Harris 1982: 50; Squartini & Bertinetto 2000: 413). I challenge this proposal showing that (1) ARPS has undergone its own development, and (2) Latin American varieties do not represent earlier frozen developmental stages akin to earlier Peninsular Spanish. / Although low in overall frequency, the contemporary ARPS PP is used in experiential settings to express indefinite past (a vernacular use). Moreover, multivariate analysis of the contemporary oral data reveals that the ARPS PP is not aspectually restricted to repetitive and iterative contexts extending into speech time – contrary to Schwenter and Torres Cacoullos’ (2008) findings for contemporary oral Mexican Spanish. Indeed, the data show that the ARPS continuative PP is losing its link-to-present requirement. The ARPS PP also features minimally in resultative and continuative settings, supporting layering of old and new grammaticalizing structures (Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994: 21). Present relevance does not determine ARPS PP usage and is instead encoded through the Preterit and temporal adverbials (TAs). / Historically, the PP has dwindled in usage frequency since the 19th century and the Preterit has invaded the spaces erstwhile occupied by the PP. PP functions like result, continuity, current relevance, and hot news are currently fulfilled by the Preterit, in combination with TAs (TA + VERB-PRET). I argue that the TA + VERB-PRET construction has emerged as a periphrastic encoder of PP nuances, a development reminiscent of perfect periphrases in languages such as Yoruba and Karaboro (Niger-Congo) (Dahl 1985: 130). A contemporary example of this construction includes the widespread temporal marker ahí ‘at this point in time’ (lit. ‘there’) in combination with the Preterit to indicate temporal immediacy. / The contemporary ARPS PP is sociolinguistically constrained; men use it significantly more often than women. The PP is also employed by younger speakers, challenging the position that this form is on the verge of extinction (Kubarth 1992a: 565; Burgos 2004: 103). In contrast to the contention that the PP occurs more frequently in written media (e.g. De Kock 1989: 489; Squartini & Bertinetto 2000: 413), the contemporary oral and newspaper corpora show similar distributional tendencies. Only in the questionnaire is the PP used more readily in ways unattested in oral interaction (i.e. in current relevance and past perfective settings). ARPS ambivalent use of the PP represents the essence of the so-called “actuation problem”; that is, the contention that the process of linguistic change involves stimuli and constraints from both society and from the structure of language (Weinrech, Labov & Herzog 1968: 186).

Diss. Luleå : Luleå tekniska univ., 2002.

Diploma thesis Form, frequency and position of adverbial in Spanish nonliterary texts in comparison with Czech is split into three chapters. First charter which is divided in 9 subchapeters that consists of theoretical part and describes classification of adverbial according to several different grammers. The introductory part presents the basic literature related to the topic and the attention is also brought to classification of adverbial according to Grammer of Spanish language that was published by Spanish Royal Academy. Center of this work is based on second chapter pratical part of this thesis in which we proceed from analysis of journalistic texts. Specifically from two language version ? Spanish and Czech. Based on analysis of these texts we focus our attention on form, frequency and position of adverbial. Special attention is put mainly on analysis of adverbial of location, time and manner. Other adverbials are only briefly evaluated and described. The total summary is given in the conclusion and includes graphs and tables. Summary in Spanish makes part of this thesis.