Research Lectures & Conferences Fall 2008
Communicative Approaches to Grammar Teaching
|Presenter||Dr. Michael Leeser||Location||Oasis, 308 GH|
|From||Florida State University||Day||Thursday, October 2nd|
|RSVP||by noon, Oct. 1st||Time||3:00 pm - 4:30 pm|
Sponsored by the Spanish department. Talk given in English.
|Facebook event for this talk|
Why do Advanced Learners of German sound Non-Native Like? A Cognitive Linguistic Explanation on the Use of Phrasal Verbs.
|Presenter||Susanne Rott||Location||1750 UH|
|From||UIC||Day||Monday, October 20th|
|Contact||Mirta Lee||Time||2:00 pm - 4:00 pm|
|Sponsored by SFIP-tip. Talk given in English.|
Phrasal verbs are taught within the first weeks of basic language instruction. Nevertheless, using them correctly from both a grammatical and semantic point of view is challenging even for advanced learners of German. Part of the difficulty lies in the inadequate analysis provided to learners of German in grammars and textbooks. This paper explores the possibilities of applying Cognitive Linguistic theories (e.g., Langacker, 1997, 2007; Goldberg, 1995, 2008) to better understand the challenge that phrasal verbs pose for learners of German. One of the fundamental premises of Cognitive Linguistics is the assumption that grammatical categories are not arbitrary but are motivated by meaning. I will first describe the prototypical meanings (e.g., Bybee, 2001; Tyler, 2006) of German phrasal verbs and explore the metaphorical and pragmatic meaning extensions. I will then describe from a cognitive processing perspective why learners of German fail to learn phrasal verb constructions. Based on empirical data, I demonstrate how native and advanced users of German store phrasal verbs differently in their linguistic systems. Finally, I will identify instructional techniques that can be used to overcome these shortcomings.
I argue that these two types of equatives are focus-presuppositional constructions in that they each require that an OPEN PROPOSITION be contextually salient (i.e., evoked or inferrable) at the time of utterance. They differ, however, in the number of variables being instantiated as foci within that open proposition (OP). The deferred equative in (1) instantiates the two variables in the OP ‘X corresponds to Y’, while the epistemic would equative in (2) instantiates the single variable in the OP ‘Chris ordered X’, with the demonstrative subject being used to refer deictically to the instantiation of the variable in the OP, as a type of discourse deixis. Unlike marked syntactic constructions that employ noncanonical word order to signal the OP requirement (e.g, clefts, gappings, preposings, inversions), these equatives perform this discourse function by other means, through, e.g., a non-literal equative (as in (1)) or the presence of epistemic would (as in (2)).
Nov. 14 Alejandro Cuza (UIC)
Dec. 5 Dennis Ott (Harvard)