|
Answering strategies: A view from acquisition| old_uid | 263 |
|---|
| title | Answering strategies: A view from acquisition |
|---|
| start_date | 2005/11/28 |
|---|
| schedule | 09h30-11h |
|---|
| online | no |
|---|
| summary | Different languages often make use of different strategies to answer the very same question concerning the subject of the clause. Why should it be so? To what kind of analysis do the different strategies correspond? Are they as different as they appear to be? As discussed in part in previous work, I will propose that principled reasons lead to the selection of the (partly different) preferred strategy in the languages considered (Italian, French, English; German will also be touched upon). Ultimately, the positive setting of the null subject parameter leads to the selection of the (subject)inversion/VS strategy in Italian, while different strategies, such as use of a (reduced) cleft or focalisation in the preverbal subject position (or in the left periphery) are adopted in the non-null subject French and English (and German). Despite their visible difference, these strategies will be shown to have more in common than it appears at first sight. The analysis highlighting similarities and differences, will be developed in terms of the structural cartography of the low area of the clause. Acquisition data will be discussed against this background. In particular, adult L2 acquisition experimental data will be shown to reveal the very existence of the detected strategies as well as some deep similarities among them, in a peculiar and interesting way. The question will also be addressed of how early in (first language) acquisition the different preferred strategies emerge and why and how one strategy typically takes priority over the others in the languages considered. |
|---|
| responsibles | Nash |
|---|
| |
|