| Papers [1-2] of 2 | Search results on "THEORY GRAMMATICALIZATION": |
|
|
Theory of Grammaticalization, 2007.
A discussion of the theory of grammaticalization as it is defined within current linguistic literature.
3,452 words (approx. 13.8 pages), 12 sources, APA, $ 97.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This academic paper examines contemporary linguistic theory, with a focus on grammaticalization in the development of language. This analysis is made for both language form and in acquisition by individuals. The author challenges the idea that language is structural. The paper addresses this issue by evaluating ideas that view grammaticalization as an epiphenomenon of language.
Outline
Abstract
Introduction
Epiphenomenon
Grammaticalization Defined
Grammaticalization as Epiphenominon
Works Cited
From the Paper
"In a sense the epiphenomenon of grammaticalization, as many would claim is the psychological response to the neurologically fixed brain functioning that creates workable mental shortcuts through the utilization of commonly occurring rules that are unique to individual languages and to some extent people. The brain functions to save the individual undue work in forming language, when common rules are oft repeated and in so doing, as the theory goes it leaves the individual capable of the creation of language in an easy almost non-thinking manner. (Anderson, and Lightfoot 162) Yet, when an individual attempts, once these shortcuts have been set, to learn a unique language, a variation of ones own language, say modern English as compared to Middle English or even the English spoken in another country in the present world, he or she is stymied by these shortcuts as they would need to be eradicated or altered (which theory claims is difficult if not impossible to do) to think in and become fluent in another language. (Healy 3)"
| |
|
Who and Which in Bulgarian and English, 2006.
Examines problems of number and gender transfer when translating "who" and "which" from Bulgarian into English.
4,983 words (approx. 19.9 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 126.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
There are a number of problems that a translator might come upon when translating wh- words from Bulgarian into English. This paper looks at "who" and "which" in particular. Why is there a problem? In English, "who" and "which" do not take grammatical markers for gender and number, while in Bulgarian they do . In English and Bulgarian, gender is grammaticalized differently. This particularity is sometimes considered a problem for certain translations from Bulgarian, and more specifically, when gender seems of importance to the Bulgarian text. This paper deals with the notions of grammatical and semantic gender only because the former exists in Bulgarian and the latter is used in English. This paper begins with some preliminary remarks, exposing the differences between Bulgarian and English when it comes to number and gender markings. Some translation examples are discussed in more detail in the section entitled "Examples". It must be pointed out that the paper investigates only one side of the problem, where Bulgarian is the source language and English is the target language. Back translation is not discussed here. The main focus is on how gender itself is produced and translated. Following paragraphs clarify what gender is in both languages and what problems translators might encounter if they choose to transfer a gendered reference from Bulgarian into English.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Preliminary Remarks on Gender and Number in English and Bulgarian
Who and Which in English
Who and Which in Bulgarian
Examples
Conclusions
Bibliography
From the Paper
"In the extra-linguistic world, gender is a physiological phenomenon connected with the structure of some living beings. There are objects with no sex (inanimate) and others with sex (animate). The category of sex has two exponents (male and female). These facts can be reflected in language since gender markings in a given language are, on the first place, categories established through our contact with the natural differences between the sexes and between what we have called "the animate" and "the inanimate". Thus, the linguistic exponent of sex has the following grammatical and/or lexical correspondences in English:
1 M / he male (animate) boy, father, John, etc.
2 F / she female (animate) girl, mother, Mary, etc.
3 N / it O gender (inanimate/undetermined) cat, stone, table, baby (if sex unknown)"
|
|
|
If you can't find your topic here, try another search
or try our affordable, unique custom paper alternative
Custom Research Services include:
- Papers written from scratch, according to your specifications.
Every paper is UNIQUE - Guaranteed
- Professional, top-notch writers
- All topics covered
- Any deadline
- Your satisfaction guaranteed
Place a Custom Research order now
Find out more about Custom Research
|
|
|
