鼓吹理论上和经验主义的能力

Q2 Arts and Humanities
D. Lange
{"title":"鼓吹理论上和经验主义的能力","authors":"D. Lange","doi":"10.1515/ZFAL-2019-2001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Rulebooks of Easy-to-read (ETR) German recommend to strictly avoid the genitive and to replace it by “von”-phrases with dative. This is backed by the assumption that for the target groups of ETR German genitive-phrases are generally harder to understand than “von”-phrases. However, there has been no empirical foundation for this assumption. The test reported in this paper addressed this problem and wanted to find out whether genitive is really harder to understand than “von”-phrases for two target groups: 17 adults with intellectual disability and 16 functional illiterates, that is people, who learned to read but, due to multiple reasons, do not have reading skills (anymore) that are sufficient for everyday life. The test was designed as multiple-choice test and compares the intelligibility of common forms of the attributive genitive (i.a. genitivus obiectivus, genitivus partitivus) with their “von”-paraphrases. The participants had to read and understand sentences and subsequently choose between statements that applied to the sentences or not. The overall results show that the tested forms of the attributive genitive were easy to understand. Comparing genitive-phrases and “von”-phrases there were no significant differences. That means, both forms were easy to understand for the participants. Some genitive forms were even easier to understand than the “von”-paraphrases. The results lead to the conclusion that the general prohibition of genitive in ETR German has to be revised.","PeriodicalId":53445,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Linguistik","volume":"2019 1","pages":"37 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/ZFAL-2019-2001","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Der Genitiv in der „Leichten Sprache“ – das Für und Wider aus theoretischer und empirischer Sicht\",\"authors\":\"D. Lange\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ZFAL-2019-2001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Rulebooks of Easy-to-read (ETR) German recommend to strictly avoid the genitive and to replace it by “von”-phrases with dative. This is backed by the assumption that for the target groups of ETR German genitive-phrases are generally harder to understand than “von”-phrases. However, there has been no empirical foundation for this assumption. The test reported in this paper addressed this problem and wanted to find out whether genitive is really harder to understand than “von”-phrases for two target groups: 17 adults with intellectual disability and 16 functional illiterates, that is people, who learned to read but, due to multiple reasons, do not have reading skills (anymore) that are sufficient for everyday life. The test was designed as multiple-choice test and compares the intelligibility of common forms of the attributive genitive (i.a. genitivus obiectivus, genitivus partitivus) with their “von”-paraphrases. The participants had to read and understand sentences and subsequently choose between statements that applied to the sentences or not. The overall results show that the tested forms of the attributive genitive were easy to understand. Comparing genitive-phrases and “von”-phrases there were no significant differences. That means, both forms were easy to understand for the participants. Some genitive forms were even easier to understand than the “von”-paraphrases. The results lead to the conclusion that the general prohibition of genitive in ETR German has to be revised.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53445,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Linguistik\",\"volume\":\"2019 1\",\"pages\":\"37 - 72\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/ZFAL-2019-2001\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Linguistik\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFAL-2019-2001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Linguistik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFAL-2019-2001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

摘要《易读德语规则手册》建议严格避免使用属格,用带与格的“von”短语代替。这是基于一种假设,即对于ETR的目标群体来说,德语物主短语通常比“von”短语更难理解。然而,这一假设没有经验基础。本文中报道的测试解决了这个问题,并想要找出两个目标群体是否真的比“von”短语更难理解:17名智力残疾的成年人和16名功能性文盲,即那些学会阅读但由于多种原因,不再具备日常生活所需的阅读技能的人。该测试设计为多项选择测试,并比较了常见形式的定语及属性(即genius objective, genitivus partitivus)及其“von”-释义的可理解性。参与者必须阅读和理解句子,然后在适用于句子的陈述和不适用的陈述之间做出选择。总体结果表明,定语属性的测试形式易于理解。属格短语与“von”短语比较无显著差异。这意味着,这两种形式对参与者来说都很容易理解。有些属格形式甚至比“von”更容易理解。研究结果表明,ETR德语中普遍禁止所有格的规定需要修改。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Der Genitiv in der „Leichten Sprache“ – das Für und Wider aus theoretischer und empirischer Sicht
Abstract Rulebooks of Easy-to-read (ETR) German recommend to strictly avoid the genitive and to replace it by “von”-phrases with dative. This is backed by the assumption that for the target groups of ETR German genitive-phrases are generally harder to understand than “von”-phrases. However, there has been no empirical foundation for this assumption. The test reported in this paper addressed this problem and wanted to find out whether genitive is really harder to understand than “von”-phrases for two target groups: 17 adults with intellectual disability and 16 functional illiterates, that is people, who learned to read but, due to multiple reasons, do not have reading skills (anymore) that are sufficient for everyday life. The test was designed as multiple-choice test and compares the intelligibility of common forms of the attributive genitive (i.a. genitivus obiectivus, genitivus partitivus) with their “von”-paraphrases. The participants had to read and understand sentences and subsequently choose between statements that applied to the sentences or not. The overall results show that the tested forms of the attributive genitive were easy to understand. Comparing genitive-phrases and “von”-phrases there were no significant differences. That means, both forms were easy to understand for the participants. Some genitive forms were even easier to understand than the “von”-paraphrases. The results lead to the conclusion that the general prohibition of genitive in ETR German has to be revised.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Linguistik
Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Linguistik Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik (ZfAL) is the official publication of the Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik (GAL) [Society for Applied Linguistics]. It is one of the most important German journals in this field and appears biannually. ZfAL seeks to represent the entire field of applied linguistics and to give impulses for the academic discourse in all of its subdisciplines (e.g. phonetics and speech science, lexicography, grammar and grammar theory, text linguistics and stylistics, discourse studies, media communication, specialized communication, sociolinguistics, language contact and multilingualism, intercultural communication and multilingual discourses, translation/interpretation studies, language didactics, media didactics and media competence, computer linguistics, among others). The emphasis of applied linguistics is on the transfer of linguistic methods and insights to the professional practice of those whose work concerns language, language use and communication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信