CL Basics Flashcards

Question

pragmatic word order vs grammatic word order ?

Answer 1

GER: pragmatic -> new information can be placed last Wer hat dir das Buch geschenkt? Das Buch hat mir meine Schwester geschenkt. (Not necessary to say: Meine Schwester hat mir das Buch geschenkt) ENG: information structuring has to take a backseat to word order: Who gave you the book? My sister gave me the book. (preferred would be to have old information at the end) (Cant say: The book gave me my sister)

Answer 2

John crashed my car -> dispreferred, New info "John" is better to be placed LAST; But English can't have: My car crashed John. Thus: English has Information structure compensation strategies: Focusing construction: Base sentence: John crashed my car. It-cleft: It was John who crashed my car. -> John is now at the end of the main clause. If cleft: It was my car, which John crashed Or pseudocleft: if focus is supposed to put on car: What did John crash? What John crashed is my car. (not my bike)

Answer 3

GER can put object in front; Eng needs to use passive: Mich brachte mein Freund nach Hause. I was brought home by my friend. Mir gab meine Schwester ein Buch. I was given a book by my sister. However, ENG also has way more passive use: This car has been meddled with AN diesem Auto wurde herumgeschraubt (Adverbial moved to front, but car isnt subject, there is no subject) GER does not need subject for passive: Ihm wurde viel Geld angeboten (but needs dative object) ENG: He was offered a lot of money (he is subject)

Answer 4

Subjects can have unusual semantic roles in ENG (GER S is usually the agent) The room seats 40 people. S = a place The bucket was leaking water. S = the source This ad will sell us a lot. S = instrument Tomorrow will be rather cold S = Time

Answer 5

They fled the capital (Source) He threatened violence (Instrument)

Answer 6

ENG has developed additional transitive meanings (in originally in transitive verbs = still in GER) intr: 1) to stand trans: 2) to stand someone/something against the wall; -> GER needs "stellen" intr: 1) to run 2) trans: run a horse in a race

Answer 7

also called Argument trespassing (across clause boundaries from subordinate clause to main clause) -> two sentences become one I believe that she is a nice person → Ssub > Omain → I believe her to be a nice person (S raised) It so happened that he knew the answer → Ssub > Smain → He happened to know the answer (S raised) It is boring to read this book → Osub > Smain → This book is boring to read (O raised)

Answer 8

due to loss of inflection: a decreasing number of forms had to carry an increasing load of linguistic function (= syncretism) Er sprang auf DEN Tisch: He jumped on the table Er sprang auf DEM Tisch (herum): He jumped on the table (same structure)

Answer 9

Lexic: ENG has many foreign borrowings thus varied word stock expressing fine differences: GER: Dunst & Nebel ENG: fog, mist, haze -> 3 terms GER: does compounding as word formation: Schreibtisch. Kaffeetisch. Tisch. -> tisch has many functions (called association) ENG: due to borrowings: Table / Desk -> two forms (dissociations) Pronouns: Ger has double "sie": third pers sing female and third person plural ENG: has two forms: she and they Not complete reversal: Only GER being loose: in case of predicative adjectives: they do not inflect Es ist groß Der ist groß Wir sind groß But: ein großer Baum, ein großes Pferd (ENG also loose because adj don't inflect at all) GER is ambiguous after negative adverbials: Noch nicht einmal vor einem Jahr, kam man rein, ohne zu bezahlen. -> outraged tone: a year ago, you could get in without paying -> disappointed tone: you've always had to pay

Answer 10

semantic extension of Germanic words in ENG: can be seen in collocations: do goes with conceptually more things: do: 1. tun/machen do homework do: 2. rechnen: to do sums set: 1. ein Satz/Gruppe: a set of teeth set: 2. TV set Put on -> GER: aufsetzen, aufziehen, anziehen, umbinden... To know - wissen / kennen / können Also: ENG objects can take more semantic roles: dig: 1. a hole -> effected: hole is a result dig: 2. the ground -> affected: ground has been changed -> GER needs to make this difference specific Another example: to paint (a wall / a picture) vs. ein Bild malen / eine Wand streichen Word formation process of Conversion: conversion typical for ENG, very loose-fit ENG: does not change base form: adjective (a round ball), noun (first round), particle (look ‘round)

Answer 11

ENG: dissociation: with foreign influence, many different types of words for related objects: table / desk town / city GER does association instead: one base form with added meaning: Tisch / Schreibtisch Stadt / Großstadt But there is a reverse example: ENG: brush - paintbrush GER: Bürste - PINSEL (not Malbürste)

Answer 12

Say this about actual inflectional morphemes in GER: only a few different ones: Only genitive -es in singular (dative -e is fading) and -er -n in plural But combination of article and noun leaves only 3 cases of ambiguity: Die Puppe (nominative and accusative singular female) Der Puppe (dativ and genitiv singular female) Das Haus (Nominativ and accusativ)

Answer 13

Nouns which have zero morpheme plural forms will always be either male or neutral, BUT NEVER female. Why? Plural article is "die" for all gendered words; since it is also the singular female article, plural female words would not be distinguished; therefore all plural female words need to have a plural marker Die Hose - Die HoseN Der Bohrer - DIE Bohrer Flügel, Kabel, Computer, Leiter...

Answer 14

Ger has distinct possessive and demonstrative pronouns, therefore it can track reference: Maria liebt ihre Oma und ihre Freunde (Marias). Maria liebt ihre Oma und deren Freunde (Omas) ENG: Maria loves her Grandma and her friends -> her is ambiguous Er sah seinen Bruder mit seiner Frau. Er sah seinen Bruder mit dessen Frau. He sah his brother with his wife. -> His is ambiguous

Answer 15

GER -e -en -er -s [zero] -> 5 plural morphemes ENG: only -s BUT 3 phonetic realisations (s z iz) but also: -ren, -en, ablaut (foot-feet), zero marking (fish)

Answer 16

do not inflect, But there are adverbs: -ly suffix But: debate whether its derivational word formation or actual inflectional morpheme: suffix changes word class → argument for derivational suffix can be added to any adjective whenever adverb is needed → seems more like inflection

Answer 17

Ger: very regular: addition of -er and -en ENG: similar: -er and -est But also: periphrastic / analytical mechanism: (beautiful - more beautiful - most beautiful) → younger phenomenon, shows tendency towards loss of inflection

Answer 18

indicative = basically always used. One true subjunctive left: If I were... Instead is used: plain indicative: God save the queen. I insist that he go. past form: If you had known this, you... modal verb: It's only natural that he should despise his followers

Answer 19

creates forms that are identically morphologically, but differ semantically/syntactically adjective: interesting noun: No reading of poetry is good enough for her gerund: Reading is fun progressive aspect: I am reading Preposition: Concerning you application... Adjunct construction: Walking down the river, he saw...

Answer 20

Generally yes. But GER does not have: -ly adverbs gender, person, number distinguished reflexive pronouns: myself, yourself and progressive aspect

Answer 21

ENG The problem is the students. (not the problem are) GER Das Problem SIND die Studenten -> Subject is the Students, verb needs to be plural. Similar: ENG allows There's five people in the room. GER strictly plural. Da sind 5 Leute

Answer 22

Verbs with one argument: nominative Subject ENG: I am sleeping; Ger too: Ich schlafe But GER can also do: Mich friert (accusative) Mir ist kalt (dative)

Answer 23

indirect object then direct object: -> he gave her a new hat (recipient before theme) Simple NP then prepositional phrase: John blamed Bill (NP) for the accident (PP) John blamed the accident (NP) on Bill (PP) UNLESS NP is too heavy! -> John blamed for the accident (PP) the man who had run the red light (heavy NP) More weight principle: *Give the young lady (recipient) me as a husband -> ME is too light because it is a pronominal object. Therefore: Give ME to the young lady as a husband: light theme goes first, recipient has to become a PP

Answer 24

Exclamatives: Him write a novel? SVO Er und einen Roman schreiben? SOV

Answer 25

Finite verb second (Er hat in seinem Bett geschlafen) Subclause word order is actually more "basic" in a way than the main clause order because all clause types can be derived from subclause order: Ich glaube, (main) dass Karl gestern seinem Sohn ein Fahrrad geschenkt hat. -> question: move hat to the front: Hat Karl gestern seinem Sohn ein Fahrrad geschenkt? Then: topic-fronting creates all possible sentences: Karl hat gestern seinem Sohn ein Fahrrad geschenkt. Seinem Sohn hat Karl gestern ein Fahrrad geschenkt Ein Fahrrad hat Karl gestern seinem Sohn geschenkt. Gestern hat Karl seinem Sohn ein Fahrrad geschenkt. Geschenkt hat Karl gestern seinem Sohn ein Fahrrad. Therefore German word order is actually: TOPIC VERB REST

Answer 26

1. inversion to encode questions, conditionals, exclamatives (Had he seen this? He had seen it Had he known this, he would have... Isnt it wonderful!) GER has these too: Hat er das gesehen? Hätte er das gewusst, Ist das nicht toll? BUT: ENG can only invert auxiliary verbs, GER can do both: Kennst du seinen Sohn? Know you his Sohn? -> needs do support 2. Inversion after negative adverbials: Never have I ever gone to the zoo Not even a year ago could you get in. BUT: if no inversion is made, then to show difference in meaning: Not even a year ago, you could go in GER DOES NOT HAVE THIS MECHANISM -> is ambiguous 3. Inversion of indirect speech ENG can have both: "..." said the man. "..." the man said. Ger only has "..." sagte der Mann. -> Ger has conserved its order, ENG shows need to put Subject before any verb; or its a whole post-poned phrase.

Answer 27

End of sentence: ENG: I met him at the trainstation yesterday .(loc>temp) GER: I traf ihn gestern am Bahnhof (temp>loc) Beginning: ENG matches GER: Yesterday in London, I met my friend (these examples seem off: I would totally say yesterday at the trainstation but maybe I'm just wrong) If more adverbials: Ger and Eng seem in reversal She has worked on the boat with great care in the garden the whole time today Sie hat heute die ganze Zeit mit großer Sorgfalt an ihrem Boot gearbeitet -> the closer the adverbials are logically to the verb, the closer they are to it.

Answer 28

Not is fixed in ENG: after verb GER it can change position and express scope: Der Professor hat mit einem Studenten nicht gesprochen. Der Professor hat nicht mit einem Studenten gesprochen Both in ENG: The professor hat not talked to a single student.

Answer 29

Chomsky tries to finding the basic building blocks to formulate all possible language utterances UG as recent focus in grammatical / theory research → finding regularities common to all languages Chomsky’s method, and other UG searchers: analysis, in depth description of one language, e.g. English → since UG is foundation of all languages, it can be found via just one language But: other researchers felt analysis of just one language for UG is not enough, comparative approach instead: CL, Hawkins wants to offer GER/ENG as two most studied systems Hawkins believes UG should exist: mathematical combination of all word order possibilities is very high -> but actual typological word order types are way less (SVO as big standard), thus there must be an underlying force

Answer 30

Both genetically close related (West Germanic language) Contrasts can be compiled into "grand topic areas": morphology, syntax; they go deep into basics of the language, Not just a few superficial contrasts here and there And: Unity of contrast principle: “Where the surface structures (morphology and syntax) of English and German contrast, English regularly exhibits greater ‘distance’ between form and meaning in specifiable ways” ENG loose - GER tight

Answer 31

“Where the surface structures (morphology and syntax) of English and German contrast, English regularly exhibits greater ‘distance’ between form and meaning in specifiable ways” Hawkins’ main claim thus: relationship between from and their meaning is looser in ENG than in GER; Ger structure retains more to a “logical-semantic” structure Historical motivation: ENG is drifting faster away from common ancestry. Started by a change in stress pattern, that caused case system corrosion and that in turn caused fixing of word order

Answer 32

Eng: simplified forms; fixed word order (no inflection) results in more functions that have to be served (by those fewer, and simpler forms) → loose-fit, ambiguous form/meaning mapping GER: more complex forms (with inflection) results in less ambiguous distribution of function onto them → tight-fit; simpler form/meaning mapping

Answer 33

Sees ENG as clearly full of syncretism; e.g. VERB only three forms: say, says and past said GER: all person inflect, only 3 forms are repeated (er sagt / ihr sagt, wir sagen / sie sagen, wir sagten / sie sagten)

Answer 34

GER: du dich dir ihr euch Sie Ihnen ENG: you 7:1

Answer 35

GER: woher? Wohin? ENG: where / where -> ENG verb has to make up for loss of article inflection: Where do you live? (wo), live = static word, no direction Where are you going? (Wohin) go = activity verb, has direction also: Hinter dem Tisch / Hinter den Tisch -> ENG: ambiguous behind the table

Answer 36

CAH has been debunked/neglected But: Kortmann still believes in teaching application of CL reasons: COUNTERACTING TRANSFER: (underrepresentation) L2 learners (advanced too), majorly have to deal with “inhibitive” interference: underusing/avoiding typical L2 (not typical in L1) →CL describes contrast in L1/2 -> results for demonstration / attention for learners; -> CL with focus on typologically contrastive language (e.g. GER synthetic vs ENG analytic) can help showing how much inhibitive transfer there is to be expected TYPOLOGICAL INSIGHTS FOR CL future L2 teachers can be helped to see the forest instead of just mere trees with a birds eye view given by typology: Contrasts are due to deeper language characters: ENG grammar features are the way they are due to analytic language type GER grammar features are the way they are due to inflectional language

Answer 37

Mutual relation of typology and CL: Generally: typology regards 40-50 languages according to a single or very few parameters CL on the other hand regards 2-3 languages in all their features how do these work together? → typology offers hints/ideas for closer inspection of two languages → CL tests the results typology has shown in detail and works out fine-grained contrasts which in turn inspires typology to compare these on a large scale

Answer 38

I believe him to be a nice person → “him” is not an argument of believe here (it is an argument in structures like: “I believe him” who?Him) what happened: normal clause: I believe (he is a nice person) “he” was subject, now it is raised to O in main: I believe him to be a nice person. 39 John is hard to miss → again, it’s not an argument of is “John is hard” → hard is argument

Answer 39

underuse non-agentive Subjects, medio-passive or raising constructions Also: GER will struggle to mark voiced "d" at the end of words (because unmarked Auslauteverhärtung in GER inhibits ENG's marked structure)

Answer 40

“famous” contrast GEr / ENG: Auslautverhärtung (devoicing of final voiced consonants in Ger) English GER learners: have no problem making the distinction in GER; German ENG learners: devoice final consonants, struggle to “unlearn” this many languages feature this final devoicing; can be considered as unmarked voiced final consonants are marked → marked differential hypothesis (Eckman): marked contrasts in target language will cause problems, because they don’t follow universal, generic (= unmarked) tendencies

Answer 41

Study comparing English relative clauses built by Persian, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese speakers chinese and japanese made less mistakes, but also used less relative clauses → avoidance strategy reason for that was seen in typology: Chinese is a language with left-directionality (modifying element comes before its head, e.g. Object before Verb, relative clauses before head) English is a language with right-directionality (Object follows verb, relative clauses come after the head) → Kortmann: Proof that there is a connection between typology and L2 production

Answer 42

Hawkins unity principle: Where English and German grammatical structures contrast, the German surface forms are closer to their meaning (form/function 1:1) while English is more ambiguous (less forms, still same functions needed to express) Rohdenburg: However; only true for the data Hawkins shows → insufficient My take: → Overall, Hawkins examples / arguments for his tight/fit-loose/fit hypothesis can be shown across broad grammatical categories (e.g. morphology); whereas Rohdenburgs counterarguments are rather niche; also many of his examples do not appear valid to me (“He is religious” is fine, at least nowadays it is)

Answer 43

ENG: favours definite argument deletion GER: favours indefinite argument deletion definite deletion: ENG: The Still Life Exhibition! Have you been ((to it)) yet? I’d love to go ((to it / there)) -> can delete easily Ger: Bist du schon DA gewesen? *Bist du schon gewesen Ich möchte DA gerne HINgehen * Ich möchte gerne gehen -> GER needs to be precise, thus its more transparent -> GER tight fit; ENG loose fit (agrees with Hawkins) BUT: indefinite deletion: Liebe macht x blind. → acc obj can be left out Vs. Love makes "people" blind. (*Love makes blind) -> ENG needs to be more transparent (GER can be loose-fit) Also in verbs of appeal: The general ordered his men to blow up the bridge → argument of ordered cannot be deleted Der General befahl x , die Brücke zu sprengen → Ger can neglect the ordered person -> ENG more transparent

Answer 44

conjunction GER one damit → ENG many words Ich binde meine Schuhe, damit ich nicht hinfalle I tie my shoes to ensure not falling down Nur, damit du’s weißt. Just to let you know GER preposition ENG semantic verb Für Reisende mit DB Tourist-Karte vs For travellers holding DB-Tourist Karte Wir singen nun Gesang 200, ohne 3. Strophe vs We shall sing song 200, omitting verse 3. Filme mit Bruce Lee… vs. Movies starring / featuring … GER preposition für vs ENG to infinitives (apparently there are 18 known translations for "für") Ich wurde dafür bezahlt vs. I got paid to do it. Für Größe 16 (Etikett) vs To fit size 16 Ich lege Geld bei für Porto und Verpackung vs I enclose money to cover packing and postage. Ger standalone adjective; ENG needs precision: Er ist musikalisch Er ist religiös Die Übersetzung ist frei *He is musical → He is very musical *He is religious → He is very religious / a religious man *The translation is free → the translation is a bit free

Answer 45

States that both are correct, but within the particular subsystem of grammatical areas they looked at: Hawkins: in obligatory areas (e.g. case assignment) in GER are more tight-fit Rohdenburg: in areas of choice (e.g. using a preposition or a participle, using conjunction or an infinitive) in ENG are more tight-fit