Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
One of the central methodological problems within contrastive linguistics concerns the nature of the tertium comparationis (TC). On the whole, we can distinguish two approaches. The first one induces the TC directly from the language data and is universalistic. The second deduces the TC from a metatheory about the intrinsic characteristics of natural language and is relativistic. The present contribution serves a strictly methodological purpose, namely to present some new arguments in favour of the latter approach.
EN
This contribution is methodological in nature. We aim to address the question of the nature of the parameters underlying word order in Dutch with particular reference to French. We assume that there are basically three parameters to consider: an iconic parameter, a linguistic parameter and a pragmatic parameter. The iconic parameter concerns the projection of general human habits on the word order. The linguistic parameter is related to the word orders which mark language-specific but situation-free syntactic or semantic relations between word groups. Finally, the pragmatic parameter addresses the link between the communicative situation and the language-dependent word order phenomena.
EN
Secondary predicates are known to be hybrids. The secondary predicate warm in Jan eet die Hol­landse kroketjes warm is depending both on the VP predicate eet and on the NP die Hollandse kroketjes. It has also been indicated that a secondary predicate can be governed by some types of PP’s. Compare the direct object van die Hollandse kroketjes in Jan eet [van die Hollandse kroketjes] PP warm with the prepositional object van die Hollandse kroketjes in: *Jan eet [van die Hollandse kroketjes] PP warm. In the first sentence, ‘Jan’ eats an unlimited amount of ‘Dutch croquettes’, while what ‘Jan’ in the second sentence does is eating pieces of unlimited amount of ‘Dutch croquettes’. The difference between the acceptability of the two constructions tends to be analysed in two ways: 1. the first sentence is acceptable because the direct object is in fact not a PP but a NP, which is preceded by a complex determinator van die or 2. the construction is acceptable because it contains a PP which refers to entities. The aim of this paper is to further support the second opinion.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.