Texte remanié de: Thesis--Department of linguistics--Stockholm University, 1992. / Thèse constituée de sept communications. Bibliogr. à la fin de chaque communication. Errata.

Texte remanié de: Thesis Ph. D.--Ramat-Gan, Israel--Bar-Ilan university, 2002. / Bibliogr. p. 315-320. Index.

published_or_final_version / abstract / toc / Linguistics / Master / Master of Arts

published_or_final_version / Chinese / Master / Master of Philosophy

<p>This essay concerns two kinds of nominal style: nominalizations and extended attributes in front of nouns. The aim of this essay is to translate a German text, taken from a book on Greek art, and investigate how many extended attributes in front of nouns and how many nominalizations there really are. It will also be studied how they are translated into Swedish and which strategies are being used in the translation. Is there a difference between Swedish and German use of nominalizations and extended attributes?</p><p>The extended attributes are divided into three groups: extended adjectives, extended present participles end extended past participles. Then the three groups are further categorized as to how they are translated into Swedish. The nominalizations are also divided into different groups, depending on how they are constructed: infinitives, the suffixes -</p><p>The conclusion drawn from this analysis is that German extended attributes are translated in many different ways. When it comes to adjectives, the most common way to translate is to keep the extended attribute and translate word by word. The participles are more split between the categories relative clauses, verb phrases, adjective attributes and prepositional phrases. The word by word translation was not so common among the participles.</p><p>When it comes to the German nominalizations, the two equally common ways to translate are to keep the nominalization or to rephrase it to a verb phrase.</p><p>Keywords: Translation, extended attributes, noun, nominalization, noun phrase</p><p><em>ung, -<em>t, -<em>er, -<em>e, Ø, present participles and past participles. Quantification is made to show which type of translation is the most common on extended attributes and nominalizations. In the German text there are 54 extended attributes and 73 nominalizations. The different strategies of translation by Vinay and Darbelnet were used in the analysis.<p> </p></em></em></em></em></p>

This thesis describes the rules of prepositions in English adverbial phrases.

This essay concerns two kinds of nominal style: nominalizations and extended attributes in front of nouns. The aim of this essay is to translate a German text, taken from a book on Greek art, and investigate how many extended attributes in front of nouns and how many nominalizations there really are. It will also be studied how they are translated into Swedish and which strategies are being used in the translation. Is there a difference between Swedish and German use of nominalizations and extended attributes? The extended attributes are divided into three groups: extended adjectives, extended present participles end extended past participles. Then the three groups are further categorized as to how they are translated into Swedish. The nominalizations are also divided into different groups, depending on how they are constructed: infinitives, the suffixes - The conclusion drawn from this analysis is that German extended attributes are translated in many different ways. When it comes to adjectives, the most common way to translate is to keep the extended attribute and translate word by word. The participles are more split between the categories relative clauses, verb phrases, adjective attributes and prepositional phrases. The word by word translation was not so common among the participles. When it comes to the German nominalizations, the two equally common ways to translate are to keep the nominalization or to rephrase it to a verb phrase. Keywords: Translation, extended attributes, noun, nominalization, noun phrase ung, -t, -er, -e, Ø, present participles and past participles. Quantification is made to show which type of translation is the most common on extended attributes and nominalizations. In the German text there are 54 extended attributes and 73 nominalizations. The different strategies of translation by Vinay and Darbelnet were used in the analysis.

This study examines the emergence and development of the Cantonese serial verb construction (SVC) in children from 1;03 to 4;06 by investigating the naturalistic data from two longitudinal corpora. This study presents a descriptive account of the emergence and development of SVCs in early child Cantonese, seeks to explain the developmental facts from a constructionist usage-based perspective, and compares the development of SVCs in Cantonese-English bilinguals with that in Cantonese monolinguals. It is found that children start to produce SVCs spontaneously at an early age of 1;10 and that the overall frequency of occurrence is low during the developmental period studied. The early emergence of SVCs is attributed to children’s preference for iconic structures. Four surface forms are identified and shown to emerge with a consistent order: two-verb contiguous (1;10-11) < two-verb non-contiguous (2;00-01) < multi-verb contiguous (2;02) < multi-verb non-contiguous (2;03-06). Structural and conceptual complexities are suggested to be the possible factors that influence the order. The earlier emergence of contiguous forms than non-contiguous forms is explained by the hypothesis that cross-linguistically unmarked structures tend to be acquired earlier than the marked ones (O’Grady 2000). Such a generalization is compatible with constructionist approaches in suggesting cross-linguistic cognitive functional preferences for language processing. Children tend to use certain component verbs that express eight main semantic notions. The study interprets children’s SVCs as concrete instantiations of eight sub-constructions, which are subsumed by a more abstract high level SVC schema. It is observed that sub-constructions develop asynchronously, as the developmental paths of the four more frequently used SVCs (directional, dative, purpose and resultative SVCs) are more advanced than the four less often produced SVCs (instrumental, benefactive, comitative and locative SVCs). Developmental paths of the former are shown to be consistent with Tomasello’s (2003) usage-based account of language development: from concrete expressions, to pivot schemas, then to item-based constructions. However, this study does not have enough data to suggest the emergence of an abstract schema for the high level SVC. It is found that children imitate adults’ previous SVCs and repeat their own spontaneous productions frequently. These highlight the roles of the ambient language and linguistic use to children’s language development. The overall error rates of SVCs are found to be low. The reasons proposed for error production, that are, adult input, generalization from item-based constructions and complexity of target constructions, are considered as evidence to support the constructionist usage-based approach. This study shows that Cantonese-dominant bilinguals resemble Cantonese monolinguals in developing SVCs. Language dominance is invoked to account for the developmental similarities observed. Only a few code-mixed instances are recorded, suggesting limited English influence on Cantonese SVCs. It is argued that SVCs are not a vulnerable domain as they emerge early, and are produced with low error rates, and are not susceptible to English influence. By delineating the patterns of emergence and development of SVCs in child Cantonese and explaining the findings with the constructionist usage-based framework, it is hoped that this study would contribute to our understanding of child language development. / published_or_final_version / Linguistics / Master / Master of Philosophy

This thesis examines the syntax of Focus constructions in Rausa within a Principles and ParameterslMinimalist framework. An analysis is presented to account for the properties of Focus-fronting constructions in Rausa as well as of 'copular' constructions which are also shown to have Focus properties. It is argued that the 'copula' found in both Focusfronting and 'copular' constructions in Rausa is not a verbal or inflectional element as argued by McConvell (1973) and Tuller (1986a) respectively, but instead the spellout of a functional category F(ocus) in the sense of Brody (1990). Chapter 1 presents an introduction to the main syntactic characteristics of Rausa, including word order, inflectional properties and case, and data surrounding Focus and related constructions. Chapter 2 presents a general introduction to the phenomenon of Focus, including typological and comparative discussion to show the various crosslinguistic syntactic manifestations of Focus. The theoretical framework is established and and pre-Minimalist literature surrounding Focus is reviewed. Chapter 3 presents the analysis, which argues for a Focus Phrase (FP) structure for Focus-fronting constructions in Rausa and discusses the advantages ofthis approach on the basis of empirical and theoretical considerations. In chapter 4 the analysis is extended to 'copular' constructions in Rausa; these apparently unrelated constructions are shown to have Focus properties and the FP analysis is argued to account for this fact in a straightforward and principled manner. Chapter 5 considers the FP analysis from a cross-linguistic perspective to see how it might account for Focus and copular constructions in a range of languages related to Rausa, and it is shown that although some languages present challenging cases for an FP analysis, there is considerable support for an approach of this nature.

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1996. / "Logos kuriou" appears on t.p. in Greek letters. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 130-161).