abstract: Temporal adverbial clauses are present in many forms of writing. These clauses can impact the complexity of a sentence. Sentence complexity can have some effect on how readers with a diagnosed reading disability, such as dyslexia, process language. This study incorporated Hawkins’ (1994) theories about Early Immediate Constituency into a self-paced reading task designed to evaluate whether or not temporal adverbial clause positioning caused the main clause of the sentence to become more difficult to understand. Hawkins theorized that main clauses appearing at the beginning of a sentence would create an environment where a reader could reach sentence comprehension faster (CITE). The experiment used software called Linger to present the self-paced reading task. Eight participants – four with dyslexia and four without – volunteered to read sentence items from a college level textbook that had temporal adverbial clauses appearing before and after the main clause of sentences. Statistical significance in the findings show that participants read sentences more quickly when the temporal adverbial clause appeared before the main clause; however, more research is required to determine the difference between sentences fronted by adverbial clauses and sentences fronted by main clauses. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Linguistics and Applied Linguistics 2020

The present thesis analyses the use of the clausal comma in academic prose. The aim of this diploma thesis is to examine the hypothesis of relative inconsistency in the use of the comma in a multiple sentence formed by a native speaker of English. In Modern English, the descriptive approach prevails and therefore it is assumed that the comma usage varies. The factors that affect or, by interacting with other factors, contribute to the inclusion or the omission of the comma in a sentence are the length of the clause in both compound and complex sentences, the position of the clause in a sentence as well as the syntactic function of the adverbial clause in a complex sentence. The coordinate clauses are studied in terms of the presence and absence of the subject in the second conjoined clause and the semantic tightness of both clauses. Based on an analysis of 200 two-clause sentences (both compound sentences and complex sentences comprised of the matrix clause and an adverbial clause) excerpted from linguistic articles written by native speakers of English, the thesis categorises the sentences according to the dependency relation between the clauses, evaluates the frequency of the inclusion of the comma against its omission, and describes the potential factors that influenced the comma usage. The...

In recent years, computer software has been used to assist in the analysis of clinical language samples. However, this software has been unable to accurately identify complex syntactic structures such as adverbial clauses. Complex structures, including the adverbial clause, are of interest in child language due to differences in the development of this structure between children with and without language impairment. The present study investigated the accuracy of new software, called Cx, in identifying adverbial clauses. Two separate collections of language samples were used. One collection included 10 children with language impairment, 10 age-matched peers, and 10 language-matched peers. A second collection contained language from 174 students in first grade, third grade, fifth grade, and junior college. There was high total agreement between computerized and manual analysis with an overall Kappa level of .895.

Le fonctionnement du morphème polyfonctionnel d= en syriaque des Évangiles de la Peshiṭta est décrit morphosyn-taxiquement et dans une perspective typologique, en synchronie et par comparaison, pour certains points, avec d’autres versions et avec d’autres langues sémitiques. Ancien démonstratif en proto-sémitique, d= est un relateur à plusieurs niveaux syntaxiques : support de détermination, marqueur des relations génitivales et relatives, introducteur de complétives et adverbiales. Un critère syntaxique distingue sémantiquement les syntagmes génitivaux aliénables et inaliénable même si cette distinction tend à s’estomper, à des degrés différents selon les catégories sémantiques d’inaliénables, termes de parentés et parties du corps. Si les structures syntaxiques sont semblables pour les relatives restrictives et les non-restrictives, il est impossible de relativiser ces dernières pour les relatives objet, dative et adjointe. La stratégie à trou syntaxique constitue la stratégie primaire dans la hiérarchie d’accessibilité, et toutes les fonctions de la tête dans la matrice, sauf l’objet de comparaison, sont relativisables.Les fonctions de complémenteur de d= sont plus larges qu’en sémitique ancien. d= s’emploie avec 12 des 14 types de prédicats de la classification typologique de Noonan au lieu de 3 en sémitique ancien. Le syriaque est conforme à la hiérarchie implicationnelle, Complement Deranking-Argument Hierarchy. Le critère syntaxique de saturation de la valence verbale et des critères sémantiques et contextuels permettent de distinguer les adverbiales des complétives. Lorsque d= forme des locutions conjonctives avec des prépositions ou des adverbes, la polysémie des valeurs est désambigüisée grâce au contexte, à l’exception de la conjonction monosémique temporelle mo d=. Dans le discours rapporté, le discours Reproduit est majoritairement introduit sans d=, alors qu’il l’est avec d= pour le discours Reformulé. Le grec n’a eu aucune influence sur son utilisation. / The behaviour of the polyfunctional morpheme d= in the Syriac language of the Gospels of the Peshiṭta is described in a typological perspective, in synchrony and in comparison, for some properties, with other varieties of Syriac and with other Semitic languages. d=, a former demonstrative in Proto-Semitic, is a relator at various syntactic levels: a determination place-holder, a genitival and relative marker, an introducer of completive and adverbial clauses.Chapter 1 introduces the topic of the study and the theoretical framework and chapter 2 discusses the state of art.Chapter 3 is dedicated to the study of the genitive phrase. We discovered that a syntactic criterion allows to distinguish semantically between alienable and inalienable phrases, to different degrees according to the semantic categories of the inalienable set, i.e. kinship and body part terms.In chapter 4, we showed that even though syntactic structures are similar for restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, it is impossible to relativize the latter for object, dative and adjoint relatives clauses. The syntactic gap strategy constitutes the primary strategy in the accessibility hierarchy and all the functions of the head in the main clause, except the object of comparison, are relativizable.Chapter 5 deals with the functions of d= as a complementizer and an introducer of adverbial clauses. The complementizer uses are wider than in Old Semitic. d= is employed with 12 of the 14 types of predicates of Noonan's typological classification as against 3 in Old Semitic. Syriac conforms to the implicational hierarchy named Complement Deranking-Argument Hierarchy. For adverbial clauses, the syntactic criterion of saturation of the verbal valency as well as semantic and contextual criteria permit to distinguish adverbial clauses from complement clauses. When d= forms conjunctive locutions with prepositions or adverbs, the polysemy of values is disambiguated thanks to the context. Only the conjunction mo d= is monosemous (with a temporal meaning).In the last chapter (chap. 6) on reported speech, we showed that direct reported speech is mostly introduced without d=, whereas it is always the case for indirect speech. Greek did not have any influence on the use of d=. / Il funzionamento del morfema polifunzionale d= del siriaco nei Vangeli della Peshiṭta è descritto in una prospettiva tipologica, in sincronia e attraverso la comparazione, in alcuni punti, con altre versioni e con altre lingue semitiche. Tale morfema deriva dal pronome dimostrativo proto-semitico *ḏV e funge da relatore in diversi livelli sintattici: supporto di determinazione, indicatore delle relazioni genitivali e relative, introduttore delle proposizioni completive e avverbiali. Il capitolo 1 introduce la problematica della ricerca e dell’ambito teorico; il capitolo 2 presenta uno stato dell’arte sull’argomento.Il capitolo 3 è consacrato allo studio del sintagma genitivale. Un criterio sintattico ha permesso di distinguere semanticamente i sintagmi genitivali alienabili e inalienabili, anche se questa distinzione tende ad attenuarsi, in diversi punti, secondo le categorie semantiche d’inalienabile, termini di parentela e parti del corpo.Nel capitolo 4 abbiamo mostrato che, se da una parte le strutture sintattiche sono simili per le relative restrittive e le non-restrittive, dall’altra è impossibile relativizzare le ultime per le relative complemento oggetto, complemento di termine e complemento circostanziale. La strategia con gap sintattico è la strategia primaria nella gerarchia d’accessibilità e tutte le funzioni della testa nella proposizione matrice, tranne l’oggetto della comparazione, sono relativizzabili.Il capitolo 5 tratta le funzioni di d= come complementatore e introduttore di proposizioni avverbiali. Gli impieghi del complementatore sono più ampi rispetto al semitico più antico. Il morfema d= si impiega infatti per 12 dei 14 tipi di predicato della classificazione tipologica di Noonan invece dei 3 del semitico più antico. Il siriaco è conforme alla gerarchia implicativa, Complement Deranking-Argument Hierarchy. Per le proposizioni avverbiali, il criterio sintattico di saturazione della valenza verbale e dei criteri semantici e contestuali permettono di distinguere le avverbiali dalle completive.Quando d= forma delle locuzioni congiuntive con delle preposizioni o degli avverbi, la polisemia dei valori è disambiguato grazie al contesto, fatta eccezione della congiunzione monosemica temporale mo d=Nell’ultimo capitolo, sul discorso indiretto, mostriamo che il discorso “riprodotto” è introdotto senza d= nella maggior parte dei casi, mentre si usa d= nel discorso “riformulato”. Il greco non ha alcuna influenza sul suo utilizzo.

Le fonctionnement du morphème polyfonctionnel d= en syriaque des Évangiles de la Peshiṭta est décrit morphosyn-taxiquement et dans une perspective typologique, en synchronie et par comparaison, pour certains points, avec d’autres versions et avec d’autres langues sémitiques. Ancien démonstratif en proto-sémitique, d= est un relateur à plusieurs niveaux syntaxiques : support de détermination, marqueur des relations génitivales et relatives, introducteur de complétives et adverbiales. Un critère syntaxique distingue sémantiquement les syntagmes génitivaux aliénables et inaliénable même si cette distinction tend à s’estomper, à des degrés différents selon les catégories sémantiques d’inaliénables, termes de parentés et parties du corps. Si les structures syntaxiques sont semblables pour les relatives restrictives et les non-restrictives, il est impossible de relativiser ces dernières pour les relatives objet, dative et adjointe. La stratégie à trou syntaxique constitue la stratégie primaire dans la hiérarchie d’accessibilité, et toutes les fonctions de la tête dans la matrice, sauf l’objet de comparaison, sont relativisables.Les fonctions de complémenteur de d= sont plus larges qu’en sémitique ancien. d= s’emploie avec 12 des 14 types de prédicats de la classification typologique de Noonan au lieu de 3 en sémitique ancien. Le syriaque est conforme à la hiérarchie implicationnelle, Complement Deranking-Argument Hierarchy. Le critère syntaxique de saturation de la valence verbale et des critères sémantiques et contextuels permettent de distinguer les adverbiales des complétives. Lorsque d= forme des locutions conjonctives avec des prépositions ou des adverbes, la polysémie des valeurs est désambigüisée grâce au contexte, à l’exception de la conjonction monosémique temporelle mo d=. Dans le discours rapporté, le discours Reproduit est majoritairement introduit sans d=, alors qu’il l’est avec d= pour le discours Reformulé. Le grec n’a eu aucune influence sur son utilisation. / The behaviour of the polyfunctional morpheme d= in the Syriac language of the Gospels of the Peshiṭta is described in a typological perspective, in synchrony and in comparison, for some properties, with other varieties of Syriac and with other Semitic languages. d=, a former demonstrative in Proto-Semitic, is a relator at various syntactic levels: a determination place-holder, a genitival and relative marker, an introducer of completive and adverbial clauses.Chapter 1 introduces the topic of the study and the theoretical framework and chapter 2 discusses the state of art.Chapter 3 is dedicated to the study of the genitive phrase. We discovered that a syntactic criterion allows to distinguish semantically between alienable and inalienable phrases, to different degrees according to the semantic categories of the inalienable set, i.e. kinship and body part terms.In chapter 4, we showed that even though syntactic structures are similar for restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, it is impossible to relativize the latter for object, dative and adjoint relatives clauses. The syntactic gap strategy constitutes the primary strategy in the accessibility hierarchy and all the functions of the head in the main clause, except the object of comparison, are relativizable.Chapter 5 deals with the functions of d= as a complementizer and an introducer of adverbial clauses. The complementizer uses are wider than in Old Semitic. d= is employed with 12 of the 14 types of predicates of Noonan's typological classification as against 3 in Old Semitic. Syriac conforms to the implicational hierarchy named Complement Deranking-Argument Hierarchy. For adverbial clauses, the syntactic criterion of saturation of the verbal valency as well as semantic and contextual criteria permit to distinguish adverbial clauses from complement clauses. When d= forms conjunctive locutions with prepositions or adverbs, the polysemy of values is disambiguated thanks to the context. Only the conjunction mo d= is monosemous (with a temporal meaning).In the last chapter (chap. 6) on reported speech, we showed that direct reported speech is mostly introduced without d=, whereas it is always the case for indirect speech. Greek did not have any influence on the use of d=. / Il funzionamento del morfema polifunzionale d= del siriaco nei Vangeli della Peshiṭta è descritto in una prospettiva tipologica, in sincronia e attraverso la comparazione, in alcuni punti, con altre versioni e con altre lingue semitiche. Tale morfema deriva dal pronome dimostrativo proto-semitico *ḏV e funge da relatore in diversi livelli sintattici: supporto di determinazione, indicatore delle relazioni genitivali e relative, introduttore delle proposizioni completive e avverbiali. Il capitolo 1 introduce la problematica della ricerca e dell’ambito teorico; il capitolo 2 presenta uno stato dell’arte sull’argomento.Il capitolo 3 è consacrato allo studio del sintagma genitivale. Un criterio sintattico ha permesso di distinguere semanticamente i sintagmi genitivali alienabili e inalienabili, anche se questa distinzione tende ad attenuarsi, in diversi punti, secondo le categorie semantiche d’inalienabile, termini di parentela e parti del corpo.Nel capitolo 4 abbiamo mostrato che, se da una parte le strutture sintattiche sono simili per le relative restrittive e le non-restrittive, dall’altra è impossibile relativizzare le ultime per le relative complemento oggetto, complemento di termine e complemento circostanziale. La strategia con gap sintattico è la strategia primaria nella gerarchia d’accessibilità e tutte le funzioni della testa nella proposizione matrice, tranne l’oggetto della comparazione, sono relativizzabili.Il capitolo 5 tratta le funzioni di d= come complementatore e introduttore di proposizioni avverbiali. Gli impieghi del complementatore sono più ampi rispetto al semitico più antico. Il morfema d= si impiega infatti per 12 dei 14 tipi di predicato della classificazione tipologica di Noonan invece dei 3 del semitico più antico. Il siriaco è conforme alla gerarchia implicativa, Complement Deranking-Argument Hierarchy. Per le proposizioni avverbiali, il criterio sintattico di saturazione della valenza verbale e dei criteri semantici e contestuali permettono di distinguere le avverbiali dalle completive.Quando d= forma delle locuzioni congiuntive con delle preposizioni o degli avverbi, la polisemia dei valori è disambiguato grazie al contesto, fatta eccezione della congiunzione monosemica temporale mo d=Nell’ultimo capitolo, sul discorso indiretto, mostriamo che il discorso “riprodotto” è introdotto senza d= nella maggior parte dei casi, mentre si usa d= nel discorso “riformulato”. Il greco non ha alcuna influenza sul suo utilizzo.

The present study focuses on functions and English translation counterparts of the Czech lexeme aby. It is a relatively frequent word in the Czech language which is described as a subordinating conjunction expressing purpose, effect, manner, and also as a particle with a number of discourse functions. The current description, however, does not seem complete and this study therefore aims to analyse its use in more detail. Lexicographic and grammatical sources served as a basis for the classification of aby as a conjunction and as a particle. After an analysis of 200 examples it soon became evident that this listing is not complete and the use of aby is more complex than originally expected. The present paper thus treats all the functions of aby and also exemplifies each of them using extracted corpus data. In the study, aby in its conjunction and particle use is firstly treated separately to analyse each of them in more depth. This analysis, consequently, provides basis to point out their common features as well as their differences. The English translational counterparts are another point of interest in the study, in particular, their adequacy, regularity, and lexicalization.

Le fonctionnement du morphème polyfonctionnel d= en syriaque des Évangiles de la Peshiṭta est décrit morphosyn-taxiquement et dans une perspective typologique, en synchronie et par comparaison, pour certains points, avec d’autres versions et avec d’autres langues sémitiques. Ancien démonstratif en proto-sémitique, d= est un relateur à plusieurs niveaux syntaxiques : support de détermination, marqueur des relations génitivales et relatives, introducteur de complétives et adverbiales. Un critère syntaxique distingue sémantiquement les syntagmes génitivaux aliénables et inaliénable même si cette distinction tend à s’estomper, à des degrés différents selon les catégories sémantiques d’inaliénables, termes de parentés et parties du corps. Si les structures syntaxiques sont semblables pour les relatives restrictives et les non-restrictives, il est impossible de relativiser ces dernières pour les relatives objet, dative et adjointe. La stratégie à trou syntaxique constitue la stratégie primaire dans la hiérarchie d’accessibilité, et toutes les fonctions de la tête dans la matrice, sauf l’objet de comparaison, sont relativisables.Les fonctions de complémenteur de d= sont plus larges qu’en sémitique ancien. d= s’emploie avec 12 des 14 types de prédicats de la classification typologique de Noonan au lieu de 3 en sémitique ancien. Le syriaque est conforme à la hiérarchie implicationnelle, Complement Deranking-Argument Hierarchy. Le critère syntaxique de saturation de la valence verbale et des critères sémantiques et contextuels permettent de distinguer les adverbiales des complétives. Lorsque d= forme des locutions conjonctives avec des prépositions ou des adverbes, la polysémie des valeurs est désambigüisée grâce au contexte, à l’exception de la conjonction monosémique temporelle mo d=. Dans le discours rapporté, le discours Reproduit est majoritairement introduit sans d=, alors qu’il l’est avec d= pour le discours Reformulé. Le grec n’a eu aucune influence sur son utilisation. / The behaviour of the polyfunctional morpheme d= in the Syriac language of the Gospels of the Peshiṭta is described in a typological perspective, in synchrony and in comparison, for some properties, with other varieties of Syriac and with other Semitic languages. d=, a former demonstrative in Proto-Semitic, is a relator at various syntactic levels: a determination place-holder, a genitival and relative marker, an introducer of completive and adverbial clauses.Chapter 1 introduces the topic of the study and the theoretical framework and chapter 2 discusses the state of art.Chapter 3 is dedicated to the study of the genitive phrase. We discovered that a syntactic criterion allows to distinguish semantically between alienable and inalienable phrases, to different degrees according to the semantic categories of the inalienable set, i.e. kinship and body part terms.In chapter 4, we showed that even though syntactic structures are similar for restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, it is impossible to relativize the latter for object, dative and adjoint relatives clauses. The syntactic gap strategy constitutes the primary strategy in the accessibility hierarchy and all the functions of the head in the main clause, except the object of comparison, are relativizable.Chapter 5 deals with the functions of d= as a complementizer and an introducer of adverbial clauses. The complementizer uses are wider than in Old Semitic. d= is employed with 12 of the 14 types of predicates of Noonan's typological classification as against 3 in Old Semitic. Syriac conforms to the implicational hierarchy named Complement Deranking-Argument Hierarchy. For adverbial clauses, the syntactic criterion of saturation of the verbal valency as well as semantic and contextual criteria permit to distinguish adverbial clauses from complement clauses. When d= forms conjunctive locutions with prepositions or adverbs, the polysemy of values is disambiguated thanks to the context. Only the conjunction mo d= is monosemous (with a temporal meaning).In the last chapter (chap. 6) on reported speech, we showed that direct reported speech is mostly introduced without d=, whereas it is always the case for indirect speech. Greek did not have any influence on the use of d=. / Il funzionamento del morfema polifunzionale d= del siriaco nei Vangeli della Peshiṭta è descritto in una prospettiva tipologica, in sincronia e attraverso la comparazione, in alcuni punti, con altre versioni e con altre lingue semitiche. Tale morfema deriva dal pronome dimostrativo proto-semitico *ḏV e funge da relatore in diversi livelli sintattici: supporto di determinazione, indicatore delle relazioni genitivali e relative, introduttore delle proposizioni completive e avverbiali. Il capitolo 1 introduce la problematica della ricerca e dell’ambito teorico; il capitolo 2 presenta uno stato dell’arte sull’argomento.Il capitolo 3 è consacrato allo studio del sintagma genitivale. Un criterio sintattico ha permesso di distinguere semanticamente i sintagmi genitivali alienabili e inalienabili, anche se questa distinzione tende ad attenuarsi, in diversi punti, secondo le categorie semantiche d’inalienabile, termini di parentela e parti del corpo.Nel capitolo 4 abbiamo mostrato che, se da una parte le strutture sintattiche sono simili per le relative restrittive e le non-restrittive, dall’altra è impossibile relativizzare le ultime per le relative complemento oggetto, complemento di termine e complemento circostanziale. La strategia con gap sintattico è la strategia primaria nella gerarchia d’accessibilità e tutte le funzioni della testa nella proposizione matrice, tranne l’oggetto della comparazione, sono relativizzabili.Il capitolo 5 tratta le funzioni di d= come complementatore e introduttore di proposizioni avverbiali. Gli impieghi del complementatore sono più ampi rispetto al semitico più antico. Il morfema d= si impiega infatti per 12 dei 14 tipi di predicato della classificazione tipologica di Noonan invece dei 3 del semitico più antico. Il siriaco è conforme alla gerarchia implicativa, Complement Deranking-Argument Hierarchy. Per le proposizioni avverbiali, il criterio sintattico di saturazione della valenza verbale e dei criteri semantici e contestuali permettono di distinguere le avverbiali dalle completive.Quando d= forma delle locuzioni congiuntive con delle preposizioni o degli avverbi, la polisemia dei valori è disambiguato grazie al contesto, fatta eccezione della congiunzione monosemica temporale mo d=Nell’ultimo capitolo, sul discorso indiretto, mostriamo che il discorso “riprodotto” è introdotto senza d= nella maggior parte dei casi, mentre si usa d= nel discorso “riformulato”. Il greco non ha alcuna influenza sul suo utilizzo.

The present thesis studies the copular verbs and their co-occurrence with adjectival complements in contemporary written and spoken English. The theoretical part of this work first describes the copular verbs in terms of their types and types of complements they take. A corpus-based approach to copular verbs follows. A part of the theory also provides an overview of the terminology that is used with copular verbs. The work consists of two parts: the theoretical part which introduces the topic and describes the features of both the principal copula be and other copular verbs and the analytical part which analyses written language data excerpted from the Araneum Anglicum corpus and spoken language data from the Spoken BNC2014 corpus. The analytical part focuses on the following seven verbs: feel, look, seem, remain, become, go and get and their adjectival complements. These adjectives are then analysed in terms of their frequency and collocability with the verbs. The collocate lists of all verbs are then compared between the two corpora. Finally, the analysis also attempts to categorize the adjectives semantically. The analysis also focuses on adverbs which occur in these constructions and which function is to modify the adjectives. The results of the analytical part are summarized in the conclusion.