Bergljot Behrens, C. Fabricius-Hansen, Anneliese Pitz
The paradigm of possessive determiners differs in systematic ways across languages and causes cognitive resolution problems in the interpretation of a foreign language. Based on previous investigations into cross-linguistic influences (CLI) in learners’ interpretation of possessive determiners, this article presents the design of an experiment for testing English, German and Norwegian adult learners of French. We specify two kinds of processing problems: a direction problem (orientation towards possessor vs. possessee) and a problem of lexical parasites (‘false friends’). The experiment is directed at learners’ spontaneous interpretation of the singular possessives "son", "sa" and "ses", on account of a partly false friendship with the possessive determiners in these learners’ first languages.
{"title":"Processing possessives in French as a foreign language: Design of an experiment","authors":"Bergljot Behrens, C. Fabricius-Hansen, Anneliese Pitz","doi":"10.5617/osla.8954","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.8954","url":null,"abstract":"The paradigm of possessive determiners differs in systematic ways across languages and causes cognitive resolution problems in the interpretation of a foreign language. Based on previous investigations into cross-linguistic influences (CLI) in learners’ interpretation of possessive determiners, this article presents the design of an experiment for testing English, German and Norwegian adult learners of French. We specify two kinds of processing problems: a direction problem (orientation towards possessor vs. possessee) and a problem of lexical parasites (‘false friends’). The experiment is directed at learners’ spontaneous interpretation of the singular possessives \"son\", \"sa\" and \"ses\", on account of a partly false friendship with the possessive determiners in these learners’ first languages.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126380289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The present paper reports on an experiment in which the use of possessives is investigated in an interpreting task from English to Polish. The English possessive determiner system is neutral with respect to the syntactic position of the antecedent possessor, while Polish distinguishes lexically between locally bound – i.e. reflexive – and non-reflexive possessive modifiers. The interpreter therefore has to ‘compute’ mentally the syntactic position of the antecedent possessor in order to make the correct choice in Polish as the target language. The study shows that this is cognitively a very demanding task in simultaneous interpreting, as many errors as well as self-corrections occur. The study furthermore shows that interpreters adapt their language to their audience, and adequate omissions, as well as correct form of the possessive occur more often when they have a group of engineers in mind than when they interpret for language specialists. We understand this to mean that the cognitive complexity of solving the cross-linguistic asymmetry in the possessive system causes more errors when the interpreter stays closer to the source text in speaking to language specialists.
{"title":"Processing possessives in simultaneous interpreting from English to Polish","authors":"Katarzyna Stachowiak-Szymczak, Bergljot Behrens","doi":"10.5617/osla.8956","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.8956","url":null,"abstract":"The present paper reports on an experiment in which the use of possessives is investigated in an interpreting task from English to Polish. The English possessive determiner system is neutral with respect to the syntactic position of the antecedent possessor, while Polish distinguishes lexically between locally bound – i.e. reflexive – and non-reflexive possessive modifiers. The interpreter therefore has to ‘compute’ mentally the syntactic position of the antecedent possessor in order to make the correct choice in Polish as the target language. The study shows that this is cognitively a very demanding task in simultaneous interpreting, as many errors as well as self-corrections occur. The study furthermore shows that interpreters adapt their language to their audience, and adequate omissions, as well as correct form of the possessive occur more often when they have a group of engineers in mind than when they interpret for language specialists. We understand this to mean that the cognitive complexity of solving the cross-linguistic asymmetry in the possessive system causes more errors when the interpreter stays closer to the source text in speaking to language specialists.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124641901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
C. Fabricius-Hansen, Anneliese Pitz, Henrik Torgersen
Research on non-native pronoun resolution has predominantly been concerned with (i) ‘ordinary’ 3rd person pronouns/anaphors like En. "he", "she", "they" or "himself", "herself", "themselves", (ii) language pairs involving English as the native (L1) or the foreign (L2) language, and (iii) the role that binding constraints and syntactic structure in general play in L2 versus L1 processing. The present paper – a follow-up study to Pitz et al. (2017) – deviates from this trend in all three respects: We investigate how L1-Norwegian learners of L2-German interpret the two German possessive pronouns/determiners "sein" (≈ his) and "ihr" (≈ her or their), arguing that lexical divergence between the possessive systems, and in particular the formal similarity between binding-neutral L2-German "sein" and the L1-Norwegian reflexive possessive "sin", may enhance or interfere with L2 comprehension, depending on the structural conditions. In Section 2 we briefly present the two possessive systems. Section 3 summarizes relevant research on pronoun resolution, with a special view to possessives. Sections 4–6 present a pilot study on L1-Norwegian learners’ grammaticality judgments of "sein" and "ihr" in simple sentences (Sect. 5) and a forced-choice resolution experiment involving a group of L1-Norwegian learners with a background two or three years’ teaching of L2-German at high-school level and a control group of native speakers of German (Sect. 6). The final Section 7 provides a summary and concluding discussion of our findings.
{"title":"Lexical interference in non-native resolution of possessives?","authors":"C. Fabricius-Hansen, Anneliese Pitz, Henrik Torgersen","doi":"10.5617/osla.8955","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.8955","url":null,"abstract":"Research on non-native pronoun resolution has predominantly been concerned with (i) ‘ordinary’ 3rd person pronouns/anaphors like En. \"he\", \"she\", \"they\" or \"himself\", \"herself\", \"themselves\", (ii) language pairs involving English as the native (L1) or the foreign (L2) language, and (iii) the role that binding constraints and syntactic structure in general play in L2 versus L1 processing. The present paper – a follow-up study to Pitz et al. (2017) – deviates from this trend in all three respects: We investigate how L1-Norwegian learners \u0000of L2-German interpret the two German possessive pronouns/determiners \"sein\" (≈ his) and \"ihr\" (≈ her or their), arguing that lexical divergence between the possessive systems, and in particular the formal similarity between binding-neutral L2-German \"sein\" and the L1-Norwegian reflexive possessive \"sin\", may enhance or interfere with L2 comprehension, depending on the structural conditions. \u0000In Section 2 we briefly present the two possessive systems. Section 3 summarizes relevant research on pronoun resolution, with a special view to possessives. Sections 4–6 present a pilot study on L1-Norwegian learners’ grammaticality judgments of \"sein\" and \"ihr\" in simple sentences (Sect. 5) and a forced-choice resolution experiment involving a group of L1-Norwegian learners with a background two or three years’ teaching of L2-German at high-school level and a control group of native speakers of German (Sect. 6). The final Section 7 provides a summary and concluding discussion of our findings.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134312797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper presents first findings from an offline study of Czech native speakers’ use and interpretation of reflexive and non-reflexive possessive pronouns. The study is part of a larger possessive project outlined by Fabricius-Hansen et al. (2017), leaning on the comprehension experiment presented in Pitz et al. (2017). The study encompasses questionnaire data collected from 259 informants who were tested under four different conditions on two competing pronouns: the reflexive possessive (svůj) and the 3rd person non-reflexive possessive (jeho). The results revealed that Czech native speakers show a strong uncertainty when interpreting constructions with a cataphoric non-reflexive possessive. This shows that even for native speakers, the establishment of the anaphoric and cataphoric relations under certain syntactic conditions is a challenging and highly complex task. With these results, several hypotheses are formulated in various target-source-language pairs concerning the processing of reflexive and non-reflexive possessives in L2.
{"title":"On the interpretation of possessives in Czech: An experimental approach","authors":"Barbara Mertins","doi":"10.5617/osla.8957","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.8957","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents first findings from an offline study of Czech native speakers’ use and interpretation of reflexive and non-reflexive possessive pronouns. The study is part of a larger possessive project outlined by Fabricius-Hansen et al. (2017), leaning on the comprehension experiment presented in Pitz et al. (2017). The study encompasses questionnaire data collected from 259 informants who were tested under four different conditions on two competing pronouns: the reflexive possessive (svůj) and the 3rd person non-reflexive possessive (jeho). The results revealed that Czech native speakers show a strong uncertainty when interpreting constructions with a cataphoric non-reflexive possessive. This shows that even for native speakers, the establishment of the anaphoric and cataphoric relations under certain syntactic conditions is a challenging and highly complex task. With these results, several hypotheses are formulated in various target-source-language pairs concerning the processing of reflexive and non-reflexive possessives in L2.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130904130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dans les langues romanes et germaniques, le procédé de topicalisation consiste à déplacer en début de phrase un constituent pour lui conférér une interprétation précise, à savoir celle d’un topique/thème. Au-delà de cette caracteristique partagée, les deux groupes de langues se distinguent par deux aspects purement formels : les langues romanes ont recours à un élément de reprise sans autre changement dans l’ordre des mots, tandis que les langues germaniques V2, de façon inverse, emploient l’inversion sujet-verbe sans élément de reprise. Dans cet article, je compare la topicalisation en français et norvégien standards. En m’appuiant sur la théorie des phases (Chomsky, 2000), je propose que le type de topicalisation (avec vs. sans reprise) et le mouvement du verbe (T0 vs. C0) sont étroitement liés. L’hypothèse présentée est que la périphérie gauche d’une langue V2 et celle d’une langue non V2 sont différentes, et que le facteur décisif est le statut phasal ou non de la tête Fin0.
在罗曼语和日耳曼语中，主题化的过程包括在句子的开头移动一个构成，以提供一个精确的解释，即一个主题/主题。分担以后更加鲜明,两组两个方面的特点是纯粹的正式语文:罗曼语们使用未经任何复苏的一个变革中的词序,V2的日耳曼语言,相反地,雇佣反转sujet-verbe毫无复苏的因素。在这篇文章中，我比较了标准法语和挪威语的主题化。基于阶段理论(Chomsky, 2000)，我认为主题化的类型(有重复与没有重复)和动词的运动(T0 vs. C0)是密切相关的。假设V2语言的左边缘和非V2语言的左边缘是不同的，决定因素是Fin0头的阶段状态。
{"title":"V2, phases, et périphérie gauche : Remarques sur la topicalization en français et en norvégien","authors":"Espen Klævik-Pettersen","doi":"10.5617/osla.8911","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.8911","url":null,"abstract":"Dans les langues romanes et germaniques, le procédé de topicalisation consiste à déplacer en début de phrase un constituent pour lui conférér une interprétation précise, à savoir celle d’un topique/thème. Au-delà de cette caracteristique partagée, les deux groupes de langues se distinguent par deux aspects purement formels : les langues romanes ont recours à un élément de reprise sans autre changement dans l’ordre des mots, tandis que les langues germaniques V2, de façon inverse, emploient l’inversion sujet-verbe sans \u0000élément de reprise. Dans cet article, je compare la topicalisation en français et norvégien standards. En m’appuiant sur la théorie des phases (Chomsky, 2000), je propose que le type de topicalisation (avec vs. sans reprise) et le mouvement du verbe (T0 vs. C0) sont étroitement liés. L’hypothèse présentée est que la périphérie gauche d’une langue V2 et celle d’une langue non V2 sont différentes, et que le facteur décisif est le statut phasal ou non de la tête Fin0.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128481744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Among the syntactic changes that can be observed in the transition from Old Norwegian to Modern Norwegian are the following word order changes: loss of OV order, object shift from a VP containing a verb (non-finite verb or any verb in a subordinate clause), preverbal preposition, and topicalization of a bare head. The fact that these changes all seemto occurat the same timeis not accidental. Old Norwegian was arguably a VO language, like Modern Norwegian, but unlike Modern Norwegian, OV order was also possible.It can be shown that it is possible to derive sentences with object shift with a verb in VP, sentences with preverbal prepositions, and with topicalized heads only from an OV structure. Therefore, when the OV order was no longer available, the other three structures could no longer be derived.
{"title":"A cluster of changes: Norwegian word order","authors":"J. T. Faarlund","doi":"10.5617/osla.8902","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.8902","url":null,"abstract":"Among the syntactic changes that can be observed in the transition from Old Norwegian to Modern Norwegian are the following word order changes: loss of OV order, object shift from a VP containing a verb (non-finite verb or any verb in a subordinate clause), preverbal preposition, and topicalization of a bare head. The fact that these changes all seemto occurat the same timeis not accidental. Old Norwegian was arguably a VO language, like Modern Norwegian, but unlike Modern Norwegian, OV order was also possible.It can be shown that it is possible to derive sentences with object shift with a verb in VP, sentences with preverbal prepositions, and with topicalized heads only from an OV structure. Therefore, when the OV order was no longer available, the other three structures could no longer be derived.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115423048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I dette bidraget drister vi oss til å forutse vanskene som innlærere med forskjellige morsmål (engelsk, tysk, og norsk) forventes å ha når de skal lære det franske possessivsystemet. Mer konkret dreier det seg om forståelse/tolking av possessivdeterminativene son, sa, ses. De tre valgte språkene har nokså ulike systemer som inviterer i forskjellig grad til transfer og tolkningsfeil, og spørsmålet er hvilke faktorer i morsmålets system som gjør det lettere eller vanskeligere å tilegne seg det franske. Det foreligger en rekke undersøkelser når det gjelder norske innlærere (se bl.a. Helland 2017; 2019), men for å kunne svare på hvilken gruppe av morsmålstalere som har den tyngste oppgaven foreslår vi en sammenlignende undersøkelse på grunnlag av en test der informantene blir bedt om å identifisere referenten for possessivet under varierende betingelser. I bidraget beskriver vi kort de for-skjellige systemene, våre antagelser om innlæringsproblemer og om transfer fra de respektive L1, samt testoppsettet.
{"title":"Possessive parasitter eller parasittiske possessiver?","authors":"Cathrine Fabricius Hansen, Anneliese Pitz, Bergljot Behrens","doi":"10.5617/osla.8904","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.8904","url":null,"abstract":"I dette bidraget drister vi oss til å forutse vanskene som innlærere med forskjellige morsmål (engelsk, tysk, og norsk) forventes å ha når de skal lære det franske possessivsystemet. Mer konkret dreier det seg om forståelse/tolking av possessivdeterminativene son, sa, ses. De tre valgte språkene har nokså ulike systemer som inviterer i forskjellig grad til transfer og tolkningsfeil, og spørsmålet er hvilke faktorer i morsmålets system som gjør det lettere eller vanskeligere å tilegne seg det franske. Det foreligger en rekke undersøkelser når det gjelder norske innlærere (se bl.a. Helland 2017; 2019), men for å kunne svare på hvilken gruppe av morsmålstalere som har den tyngste oppgaven foreslår vi en sammenlignende undersøkelse på grunnlag av en test der informantene blir bedt om å identifisere referenten for possessivet under varierende betingelser. I bidraget beskriver vi kort de for-skjellige systemene, våre antagelser om innlæringsproblemer og om transfer fra de respektive L1, samt testoppsettet.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122330736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dans cet hommage à Hans Petter Helland, j’ai examiné deux sujets traités dans sa grammaire, Ny fransk grammatikk – morfologi, syntaks og semantikk (2006). En premier lieu, j’ai étudié la comparaison entre le futur simple et le futur périphrastique, un sujet de sa thèse de doctorat, Sémantique et pragmatique temporelles. Futur simple et futur périphrastique (1994). J’ai pu constater que, depuis 1994, Helland a modifié l’analyse sémantique de la périphrase de façon à rendre celle-ci plus compréhensible pour les étudiants. En second lieu, j’ai abordé les constructions hypothétiques, un de mes sujets favoris en matière verbale. Malgré quelques réserves, je trouve que la présentation qu’il fait est intéressante et très bonne d’un point de vue pédagogique.
在这篇向Hans Petter Helland致敬的文章中，我考察了他的语法《Ny fransk grammatikk - morfologi, syntaks og semantikk》(2006)中涉及的两个主题。首先，我研究了简单未来和外围未来的比较，这是他博士论文的主题，时间语义学和语用学。简单未来和外围未来(1994)。我注意到，自1994年以来，Helland改变了周边的语义分析，使学生更容易理解。其次，我讨论了假设结构，这是我最喜欢的语言主题之一。尽管有一些保留意见，但我认为他的演讲很有趣，从教学的角度来看也很好。
{"title":"Regard enthousiaste sur \"Ny fransk grammatikk - morfologi, syntaks og semantikk\" (NFG) par Hans Petter Helland","authors":"Marianne Hobæk Haff","doi":"10.5617/osla.8910","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.8910","url":null,"abstract":"Dans cet hommage à Hans Petter Helland, j’ai examiné deux sujets traités dans sa grammaire, Ny fransk grammatikk – morfologi, syntaks og semantikk (2006). En premier lieu, j’ai étudié la comparaison entre le futur simple et le futur périphrastique, un sujet de sa thèse de doctorat, Sémantique et pragmatique temporelles. Futur simple et futur périphrastique (1994). J’ai pu constater que, depuis 1994, Helland a modifié l’analyse sémantique de la périphrase de façon à rendre celle-ci plus compréhensible pour les étudiants. En second lieu, j’ai abordé les constructions hypothétiques, un de mes sujets favoris en matière verbale. Malgré quelques réserves, je trouve que la présentation qu’il fait est intéressante et très bonne d’un point de vue pédagogique.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125628092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper accounts for an unexpected embedded present tense, which denotes a future time in French relative clauses. The matrix displays either the periphrastic future or the simple future. In both cases, one can arguably decompose the matrix into a present tense feature and a forward shifter. This move leads to an analysis of the morphology encountered in the relative clause as an instance of Sequence of tense.
{"title":"Present tense in relative clauses as evidence for sequence of tense in French","authors":"A. Grønn","doi":"10.5617/osla.8907","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.8907","url":null,"abstract":"The paper accounts for an unexpected embedded present tense, which denotes a future time in French relative clauses. The matrix displays either the periphrastic future or the simple future. In both cases, one can arguably decompose the matrix into a present tense feature and a forward shifter. This move leads to an analysis of the morphology encountered in the relative clause as an instance of Sequence of tense.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132666223","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Le présent article consiste en une étude de la construction détachée en français au prisme de sa traduction en norvégien par des apprenants de niveau B1. Plus précisément, nous nous pencherons sur les cas de syntagmes adjectivaux et participiaux en constructions détachées. En inscrivant leur description théorique dans le cadre formel de Combettes (1998, 2005), nous nous attarderons sur deux aspects de ces structures – le repérage référentiel et la relation sémantique – autant de potentiels défis à la compréhension de l’apprenant. Une enquête établie en deux temps (tests 1 et 2) constituera ensuite l’empirie de nos analyses. Dans une démarche de recherche-action, à partir des descriptions théoriques fournies, nous dresserons un inventaire des écueils syntaxiques et sémantiques sur lesquels se heurtent les étudiants dans leurs traductions. Ce répertoriage mettra en exergue les différences d’emplois fondamentales entre le norvégien et le français et nous guidera vers une conclusion contrastive didactique à l’intention des apprenants.
{"title":"Traduire en norvégien des constructions détachées françaises","authors":"Nelly Foucher Stenkløv, Eirik Hvidsten","doi":"10.5617/osla.8922","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.8922","url":null,"abstract":"Le présent article consiste en une étude de la construction détachée en français au prisme de sa traduction en norvégien par des apprenants de niveau B1. Plus précisément, nous nous pencherons sur les cas de syntagmes adjectivaux et participiaux en constructions détachées. En inscrivant leur description théorique dans le cadre formel de Combettes (1998, 2005), nous nous \u0000attarderons sur deux aspects de ces structures – le repérage référentiel et la relation sémantique – autant de potentiels défis à la compréhension de l’apprenant. \u0000 \u0000Une enquête établie en deux temps (tests 1 et 2) constituera ensuite l’empirie de nos analyses. Dans une démarche de recherche-action, à partir des descriptions théoriques fournies, nous dresserons un inventaire des écueils syntaxiques et sémantiques sur lesquels se heurtent les étudiants dans leurs traductions. Ce répertoriage mettra en exergue les différences d’emplois fondamentales \u0000entre le norvégien et le français et nous guidera vers une conclusion contrastive didactique à l’intention des apprenants.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116169135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：