Βρέθηκαν 5 αποτελέσματα   RSS     Τμήμα Ιταλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας [X]   Αφαίρεση Όλων [X]

 

8ο Διεθνές Συνέδριο Αντιπαραβολικής Γλωσσολογίας ,  Τμήμα Ιταλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Αγγλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Γαλλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Γερμανικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Τμήμα Ισπανικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας

Υπεύθυνος: Γιαννουλοπούλου Γιαννούλα  (Αναπληρώτρια Καθηγήτρια),  Τμήμα Ιταλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας

Ομιλητές:  Angela Ralli  (speaker)

In contrastive linguistics, the transfer of items or structures from one language to another should hold a prominent position, since it is a common assumption that languages did not develop in total isolation, that is, entirely free of influence from other languages (Thomason 2001, Matras, 2009). In language-contact settings, lexical borrowing is admittedly the commonest and most frequent type of transfer. Nevertheless, this type of borrowing does not include only lexical material (matter replication in Sakel’s 2007 terms) but also grammatical (pattern replication), referring to addition, replacement or loss of morphological categories and/or patterns (Gardani et al. 2015). In this presentation, I will deal with the transfer and possible integration of lexical items, both nominal and verbal, to Standard Modern Greek and some of its dialectal varieties from three typologically different donors, which have been in intense contact with the recipient in the course of its long history, English, Romance and Turkish –the latter being also genetically non-parent. Comparing the form and structure of loan words of different origin, their divergences and similarities, I will attempt to formulate the constraints that determine the choice of integration strategies and patterns and the specific integrating elements. Following Ralli (2016) and Ralli et al. (2015), I will show that there is more than one recurrent pattern and strategy which are employed in Greek to accommodate loan items, sometimes within the same variety, the selection of which depends on native morphological characteristics, a certain phonological and morphological compatibility of the languages in contact, as well as the degree of contact and the speakers’ sociolinguistic attitude towards the dominant language. My data will be drawn from Canadian and American Greek (Seaman 1972, Maniakas 1991), Aivaliot/Lesbian (Sakkaris 1940, Ralli 2017), Heptanesian (Makri 2016), and Standard Modern Greek (Anastasiadis- Symeonidis 1994). References Anastasiadis-Symeonidis, A. 1994. Neologism borrowing in Modern Greek. (In Greek). Thessaloniki. Gardani, F., Arkadiev, P. & Amiridze, N. (eds). 2015. Borrowed morphology. Berlin: De Gruyter. Lucas Lucas, C. 2015. Contact-induced language change. In C. Bowern & B. Evans (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics. NY: Routledge Makri, V. 2016. Language contact at the service of endogenous forces: a case study on neuterisation in Heptanesian. In A. Ralli (ed.), Contact morphology in Modern Greek dialects, 109-144. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Maniakas, T. 1991. The ethnolinguistic reality of Montreal Greeks. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Montreal. Matras, Y. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ralli, A., Makri, V. & Gkiouleka, M. 2015. Gender and inflection class in loan noun integration. SKASE 12: 422-460. Ralli, A. 2016. Strategies and patterns in loan verb integration in Modern Greek varieties. In A. Ralli (ed.), Contact morphology in Modern Greek dialects, 73-109. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Ralli, A. 2017. Dictionary of the dialectal varieties of Kydonies, Moschonisia and Eastern Lesbos. (In Greek). Athens: Historical Researches Foundation. Sakel, J. 2007. Types of loan: matter and pattern. In Y. Matras & J. Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter. Sakkaris, G. 1940. The Kydonies dialect in comparison with the Lesbian dialect. Asia Minor Chronicles 3. Athens: Centre of Asia Minor Studies. Seaman, D. 1972. Modern Greek and American English in contact. The Hague: Mouton. Thomason, S. 2001. Language contact. An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
2017-05-27 00:59:12 15

8ο Διεθνές Συνέδριο Αντιπαραβολικής Γλωσσολογίας ,  Τμήμα Ιταλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Αγγλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Γαλλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Γερμανικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Τμήμα Ισπανικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας

Υπεύθυνος: Γιαννουλοπούλου Γιαννούλα  (Αναπληρώτρια Καθηγήτρια),  Τμήμα Ιταλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας

Ομιλητές:  María de los Ángeles Gómez González  (speaker)

In my talk I will compare and contrast the patterns of variation exhibited by tag questions with grammatically dependent question tags in English (e.g. That’s enough, isn’t it? e.g. Lakoff 1975, Algeo 1988, 1990, 2006, Holmes 1983, 1984, 1986, 1995, Coates 1989, 1996, Stenström 1997, 2005, Kimps 2007, 2016, Axelsson 2011, 2014) with those disclosed by their counterparts in Spanish (Es suficiente, ¿no?/¿verdad? e.g. Christl 1996, Briz 1998, Pons 1998, Briz et al 2008, Rodríguez Muñoz 2009) and Portuguese (É suficiente, não é?/não? e.g. Cruz Ferreira 1981, Moniz et al. 2011). Following up on my previous research (Gómez González 2014), I will discuss results emerging from this trilingual comparison along six parameters: (i) frequencies, (ii) formal features, (iii) functional characteristics, (iv) distribution across a variety of spoken genres, (v) interactive dimension, i.e. whether or not there is an answer (or a response of any kind) at turn-taking level; and (v) sociolinguistic information, specifically with regard to the gender and age of tag question users. The study is based on the analysis of 2,473 tag questions extracted from the International Corpus of English–Great Britain (Nelson, Wallis & Aarts 2002) and from the Spanish and Portuguese subcomponents of the Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages (Cresti & Moneglia 2005). Among other things, I will show that English tag questions with grammatically dependent question tags are less frequent and have less distributional and functional flexibility than their analogous constructions in the two Romance languages under inspection. In addition, I will propose a “tag/polarity-based” scale in which Spanish is situated at one extreme, showing the least structural variability because it allows for invariant question tags only. At the other extreme is Portuguese, displaying the widest array of tag types, while English is in the middle of the cline as it restricts the category of variant tag questions to the grammatically dependent type. Nevertheless, despite these structural differences, we shall see that reversed polarity patterns prevail across the three languages although, interestingly enough, negative polarity question tags are more pervasive in the two Romance languages (particularly in Portuguese) than in English. References Algeo, J. 1988. The tag qestion in British English: It's different i’n’it? English World-Wide 9:171-191. Algeo, J. 1990. It’s a Myth, innit? Politeness and the English tag qestion. In The State of the Language, C. Ricks and L. Michaels (eds), 443-450. Berkeley: University of California Press. Algeo, J. 2006. British or American English? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Axelsson, K. 2011. A cross-linguistic study of grammatically dependent question tags: Data and theoretical implications. Studies in Language 35(4):793-851. Axelsson, K. 2014. Confirmation-demanding tag questions in fiction dialogue. In Subjectivity and Epistemicity: Stance Strategies in Discourse and Narration. Lund Studies in English 117, D. Glynn and M. Sjölin (eds), 165-185. Lund: Lund University. Briz, A. 1998. El español coloquial en la conversación. Barcelona: Ariel. Briz, A., Pons Bordería, S. & Portolés, J. 2008. Diccionario de partículas discursivas del español [on line]. Available at http://www.dpde.es/. Christl, J. 1996. Muletillas en el español hablado. In El español hablado y la cultura oral en España e Hispanoamérica, T. Kotschi, W. Oesterreicher and K. Zimmermann (eds), 117-143. Madrid: Vervuert. Coates, J. 1989. Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups. In Women in their Speech Communities, J. Coates & D. Cameron (eds), 94-122. London: Longman. Coates, J. 1996. Women Talk. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Cresti, E., & Moneglia, M. 2005. CORALROM. Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cruz Ferreira, M. 1981. Tag questions in Portuguese: Grammar and intonation. Phonetica 38: 341-352. Gómez-González, M. Á. 2014. Canonical tag questions in English, Spanish and Portuguese. A discourse-functional study. Languages in Contrast 14 (1), 93-126. Holmes, J. 1983. The functions of tag questions. English Language Research Journal 3:40-65. Holmes, J. 1984. Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo 27:47-62. Holmes, J. 1986. Functions of 'you know' in women’s and men’s speech. Language in Society 15:1-21. Holmes, J. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. White Plains, NY: Longman. Kimps, D. 2007. Declarative constant polarity tag questions: A data-driven analysis of their form, meaning and attitudinal uses. Journal of Pragmatics 39(2):270-291. Kimps, D. 2016. English Variable Tag Questions. A Typology of their Interpersonal Meaning. PhD dissertation. Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row. Moniz, M., Batista, F., Trancoso, I. and Mata, A.I. 2011. Analysis of interrogatives in different domains. In Proceedings of the Third COST 2102 International Training School Conference on Toward Autonomous, Adaptive, and Context-aware Multimodal Interfaces: Theoretical and Practical Issues, A. Esposito et al. (eds), 134-146. Berlin: Springer. Nelson, G., Wallis, S., & Aarts, B. 2002. Exploring Natural Language: The British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pons Bordería, S. 1998. Conexión y conectores. Estudio de su relación en el registro informal de la lengua. Anejo XXVII de Cuadernos de Filologia. Valencia: Universitat de Valencia. Rodríguez Muñoz, F. J. 2009. Estudio sobre las funciones pragmadiscursivas de ¿eh? ¿no? en el español hablado. Revista de lingüística teórica y aplicada 47(1):83-101. Stenström, A.-B. 1997. Tags in teenage talk. In Studies in English Corpus Linguistics, U. Fries, V. Müller & P. Schneider (eds), 139-147. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Stenström, A.-B. 2005. Teenagers’ tags in London and Madrid. In Contexts - Historical, Social, Linguistic. Studies in Celebration of Toril Swan, K. McCafferty, T. Bull & K. Killie (eds), 279-291. Bern: Peter Lang.
2017-05-27 00:51:17 8

8ο Διεθνές Συνέδριο Αντιπαραβολικής Γλωσσολογίας ,  Τμήμα Ιταλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Αγγλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Γαλλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Γερμανικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Τμήμα Ισπανικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας

Υπεύθυνος: Γιαννουλοπούλου Γιαννούλα  (Αναπληρώτρια Καθηγήτρια),  Τμήμα Ιταλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας

Ομιλητές:  Caterina Donati  (speaker)

Romance interrogative constructions are an interesting area where to study microvariation: they mostly involve related question words stemming from the same Latin sources, and they tend to display some instance of dislocation, but also exhibit a number of subtle though solid differences concerning in particular: - landing site of the question word in the left periphery of the clause - asymmetries between direct and indirect questions - availability of an in-situ strategy. The talk will outline a number of parameters of variation that are able to account for the microvariation observed in Romance varieties, that will be described in detail. Some consequences concerning diachrony and acquisition will be outlined.
2017-05-26 00:56:13 7

8ο Διεθνές Συνέδριο Αντιπαραβολικής Γλωσσολογίας ,  Τμήμα Ιταλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Αγγλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Γαλλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Γερμανικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Τμήμα Ισπανικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας

Υπεύθυνος: Γιαννουλοπούλου Γιαννούλα  (Αναπληρώτρια Καθηγήτρια),  Τμήμα Ιταλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας

Ομιλητές:  Paul J. Hopper  (speaker)

Τελετή έναρξης 8ου Συνεδρίου Αντιπαραβολικής Γλωσσολογίας
2017-05-25 00:47:39 7

8ο Διεθνές Συνέδριο Αντιπαραβολικής Γλωσσολογίας ,  Τμήμα Ιταλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Αγγλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Γαλλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Γερμανικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας  -  Τμήμα Τμήμα Ισπανικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας

Υπεύθυνος: Γιαννουλοπούλου Γιαννούλα  (Αναπληρώτρια Καθηγήτρια),  Τμήμα Ιταλικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας

Ομιλητές:  Paul J. Hopper  (speaker)

Τελετή έναρξης 8ου Συνεδρίου Αντιπαραβολικής Γλωσσολογίας In this presentation I will offer a fourfold heuristic classification comprising (1) mental or cognitive explanations, (2) textual explanations, (3) social-structural (pragmatic) explanations, and (4) temporal-interactive explanations. I will examine two major grammatical domains: the domain of word order, and the domain of demonstratives, from the point of view of these types of explanation in order to suggest some consequences for contrastive analysis.
2017-05-25 00:26:33 6
Top