{"title":"德语中遥性标记的方面蕴涵:来自非母语和母语者的证据","authors":"Duarte Oliveira","doi":"10.1017/s1366728924000828","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In German, it has been shown that the semantic entailments associated with telicity markers are acquired early and that speakers will turn to semantic–pragmatic principles to determine whether an overt culmination is cancellable (e.g., van Hout, 1998, 2008; Richter & van Hout, 2013; Schulz & Penner, 2002; Schulz & Ose, 2008). Here, we test the interpretation of three types of telicity markers by Portuguese L2 speakers of German, as well as Portuguese–German bilinguals and German monolinguals. A Bayesian analysis shows that Portuguese L2 speakers of German have difficulty processing telicity with resultative particles but show target-like performances with bounded DPs and adjectival markers. Our analysis also shows that bilingual and monolingual speakers display no substantial differences in their understanding of telicity entailments, albeit with some variability regarding particle markers. I argue that the existing variation may be due to effects of lexical knowledge and transparency.</p>","PeriodicalId":8758,"journal":{"name":"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition","volume":"79 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The aspectual entailments of telicity markers in German: evidence from non-native and native speakers\",\"authors\":\"Duarte Oliveira\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1366728924000828\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In German, it has been shown that the semantic entailments associated with telicity markers are acquired early and that speakers will turn to semantic–pragmatic principles to determine whether an overt culmination is cancellable (e.g., van Hout, 1998, 2008; Richter & van Hout, 2013; Schulz & Penner, 2002; Schulz & Ose, 2008). Here, we test the interpretation of three types of telicity markers by Portuguese L2 speakers of German, as well as Portuguese–German bilinguals and German monolinguals. A Bayesian analysis shows that Portuguese L2 speakers of German have difficulty processing telicity with resultative particles but show target-like performances with bounded DPs and adjectival markers. Our analysis also shows that bilingual and monolingual speakers display no substantial differences in their understanding of telicity entailments, albeit with some variability regarding particle markers. I argue that the existing variation may be due to effects of lexical knowledge and transparency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition\",\"volume\":\"79 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728924000828\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728924000828","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The aspectual entailments of telicity markers in German: evidence from non-native and native speakers
In German, it has been shown that the semantic entailments associated with telicity markers are acquired early and that speakers will turn to semantic–pragmatic principles to determine whether an overt culmination is cancellable (e.g., van Hout, 1998, 2008; Richter & van Hout, 2013; Schulz & Penner, 2002; Schulz & Ose, 2008). Here, we test the interpretation of three types of telicity markers by Portuguese L2 speakers of German, as well as Portuguese–German bilinguals and German monolinguals. A Bayesian analysis shows that Portuguese L2 speakers of German have difficulty processing telicity with resultative particles but show target-like performances with bounded DPs and adjectival markers. Our analysis also shows that bilingual and monolingual speakers display no substantial differences in their understanding of telicity entailments, albeit with some variability regarding particle markers. I argue that the existing variation may be due to effects of lexical knowledge and transparency.