Repository of University of Nova Gorica

Search the repository
A+ | A- | Help | SLO | ENG

Query: search in
search in
search in
search in
* old and bologna study programme

Options:
  Reset


81 - 83 / 83
First pagePrevious page123456789Next pageLast page
81.
Does Grammatical Structure Accelerate Number Word Learning? Evidence from Learners of Dual and Non-Dual Dialects of Slovenian
Franc Marušič, Rok Žaucer, Vesna Plesničar, Tina Razboršek, Jessica Sullivan, David Barner, 2016, original scientific article

Abstract: How does linguistic structure affect children’s acquisition of early number word meanings? Previous studies have tested this question by comparing how children learning languages with different grammatical representations of number learn the meanings of labels for small numbers, like 1, 2, and 3. For example, children who acquire a language with singular-plural marking, like English, are faster to learn the word for 1 than children learning a language that lacks the singular-plural distinction, perhaps because the word for 1 is always used in singular contexts, highlighting its meaning. These studies are problematic, however, because reported differences in number word learning may be due to unmeasured cross-cultural differences rather than specific linguistic differences. To address this problem, we investigated number word learning in four groups of children from a single culture who spoke different dialects of the same language that differed chiefly with respect to how they grammatically mark number. We found that learning a dialect which features “dual” morphology (marking of pairs) accelerated children’s acquisition of the number word two relative to learning a “non-dual” dialect of the same language.
Keywords: števila, številke, slovnično število, dvojina, narečja, usvajanje, učenje, slovenščina, angleščina, numbers, grammatical number, dual, dialects, acquisition, learning, Slovenian, English
Published in RUNG: 10.08.2016; Views: 5003; Downloads: 242
.pdf Full text (1,38 MB)

82.
Can agreement with the linearly closest conjunct be derived in syntax proper?
Franc Marušič, Jana Willer Gold, Boban Arsenijević, Andrew Nevins, 2015, published scientific conference contribution abstract

Abstract: The recent literature on South Slavic conjunct agreement can be roughly divided into two camps: those trying to model the cases of agreement with linearly closest conjunct, as in the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS) example in (1) (taken from Bošković 2009), within syntax (Bošković 2009, Puškar & Murphy 2015 a.o.) and those claiming this agreement is a result of a postsyntactic operation that occurs after linearization and hence is sensitive to the linear distance between two syntactic elements (among these, Bhatt & Walkow 2013, Marušič et al 2015). We present a strong argument against strictly syntactic theories of conjunct agreement that leverages experimental work on BCS conjunct agreement and builds on data in Aljović & Begović (2015).
Keywords: verb agreement, conjunct agreement, experimental syntax, Slovenian
Published in RUNG: 21.03.2016; Views: 4608; Downloads: 0
This document has many files! More...

83.
Search done in 0.03 sec.
Back to top