2 resultados para linguistic structure
em Central European University - Research Support Scheme
Resumo:
The first outcome of this project was a synchronous description of the most widely spoken Romani dialect in the Czech and Slovak Republics, aimed at teachers and lecturers of the Romani language. This is intended to serve as a methodological guide for the demonstration of various grammatical phenomena, but may also assist people who want a basic knowledge of the linguistic structure of this neo-Indian language. The grammatical material is divided into 23 chapters, in a sequence which may be followed in teaching or studying. The book includes examples of the grammatical elements, but not exercises or articles. The second work produced was a textbook of Slovak Romani, which is the most detailed in the Czech or Slovak Republics to date. It is aimed at all those interested in active use of the Romani language: high school and university students, people working with the Roma, and Roma who speak little or nothing of the language of their forebears, The book includes 34 lessons, each containing relevant Romani tests (articles and dialogues), a short vocabulary list, grammatical explanations, exercises and examples of Romani written or oral expression. The textbook also contains a considerable amount of ethno-cultural information and notes on the life and traditions of the Roman, as well as pointing out some differences between different dialects. A brief Romani-Czech phrase book is included as an appendix.
Resumo:
Taking the three basic systems of Yes/No particles the group looked at the relative deep and surface structures, and asked what types of systems are present in the Georgian, Polish and Armenian languages. The choice of languages was of particular interest as the Caucasian and Indo-European languages usually have different question-answering systems, but Georgian (Caucasian) and Polish (Indo-European) in fact share the same system. The Armenian language is Indo-European, but the country is situated in the southern Caucasus, on Georgia's southern border, making it worth analysing Armenian in comparison with Georgian (from the point of view of language interference) and with Polish (as two relative languages). The group identified two different deep structures, tracing the occurrence of these in different languages, and showed that one is more natural in the majority of languages. They found no correspondence between relative languages and their question-answer systems and demonstrated that languages in the same typological class may show different systems, as with Georgian and the North Caucasian languages. It became clear that Georgian, Armenian and Polish all have an agree/disagree question-answering system defined by the same deep structure. From this they conclude that the lingual mentalities of Georgians, Armenians and Poles are more oriented to the communicative act. At the same time the Yes/No system, in which a positive particle stands for a positive answer and a negative particle for a negative answer, also functions in these languages, indicating that the second deep structure identified also functions alongside the first.