|
HU Credits:
2
Degree/Cycle:
1st degree (Bachelor)
Responsible Department:
School of Language Sciences
Semester:
2nd Semester
Teaching Languages:
Hebrew
Campus:
Mt. Scopus
Course/Module Coordinator:
Nora Boneh
Coordinator Office Hours:
By appointment
Teaching Staff:
Prof Nora Boneh
Course/Module description:
The course presents the central linguistic properties of the main Romance languages at the different levels of linguistic analysis, examining common traits and their differences.
Course/Module aims:
Deepen the acquaintance of students with the main Romance languages; give a general picture as to the characteristics of this language family.
Learning outcomes - On successful completion of this module, students should be able to:
1. Describe linguistic phenomena in the Romance languages.
2. Examine similarity and differences between the phenomena.
3. Compare between linguistic phenomena in the main Romance languages.
4. Identify systematicity in the different characteristics.
5. Form generalizations based on the details of the linguistic description.
Attendance requirements(%):
100 with some flexibility
Teaching arrangement and method of instruction:
Lecture & discussion
Course/Module Content:
Introduction: the Romance language family
Phonology
Morphology (noun, verb, pronouns)
Syntax: word order (clause, NP), differential object marking (DOM), ser/estar
Semantics: temporal system, mood, bare nominals, negation, ser/estar
Pragmatics: DOM, politeness
Required Reading:
We will read or consider topics from the following list:
Alkire, T. & C. Rosen. 2010. Romance Languages. Cambridge University Press.
Bourciez, Édouard. 1956. Élément de linguistique romane, 4e édition, Paris, Klincksieck.
Bossong, Georg. 1991. “Differential object marking in Romance and beyond”. In D. Kibbee & D. Wanner (éds.) New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins 143- l70.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: a government-binding approach. Springer
Cabredo-Hofherr, Patricia. 2004. Les clitiques sujets du français et le paramètre du sujet nul. Langue Française 141: 99-109.
Daniliuc, Laura & Radu Daniliuc. 2000. Descriptive Romanian Grammar: an outline. Meunchen: Lincom Studies in Romance Linguistics 14.
Elcock, William D. 1975. The Romance Languages, 2nd ed., London, Faber & Faber.
Giorgi, Alexandra, & Fabio Pianesi. 1997. Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giorgi, Alexandra, & Fabio Pianesi. 2001. Ways of terminanting. In C. Cecchetto, G. Chierchia & M. T. Guasti (eds.). Semantic Interfaces. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 211-277.
von Heusinger, K. 2008. “Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of differential object marking in Spanish”. Probus 20(1).
Heyde, K. van der. 1934. « L’aspect verbal en latin: problèmes et résultats. » Revue des études latines. Paris: Les belles lettres.
Hirschbühler, Paul & Marie Labelle . 2000. “Evolving Tobler-Mussafia effects in the placement of French clitics”. In S.N. Dworkin & D. Wanner (eds.) New approaches to old problems, Selected Papers from the LSRL XXIX Parasession. 165-182. Selected Papers from the LSRL XXIX Parasession. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
D’Hulst, Yves. 2004. «French and Italian Conditional: From Etymology to Representation». In The Syntax of Time. Ed. by J. Gueron & J. Lecarme. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Iordăchioaia, Gianina and Elena Soare. 2011. A further insight into the syntax-semantics of pluractionality. Proceedings of SALT 21: 95–114.
Ippolito, Michela. 2004. Imperfect Modality. In J. Guéron/J.Lecarme (eds.). The syntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. pp. 359-388.
Kayne, Richard, S. 1993. Towards a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47(1):3-31.
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge.
Laca, Brenda. 2003. Périphrases aspectuelles et temps grammatical dans les langues romanes. Handout presented at the conference Les périphrases verbales. France
Laca, Brenda. 2004. Romance "aspectual" periphrases: eventuality modification versus "syntactic" aspect. In The Syntax of Time. Guéron, J. & J. Lecarme (Eds.) Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Legendre, Geraldine. 1989. "Unaccusativity in French". Lingua 79:95-164.
Mardale, Alexandru. 2008. “Microvariation within Differential Object Marking : Data from Romance”, in Revue roumaine de linguistique No 4, LIII, Editura Academiei Române, Bucuresti, pp. 448-467.
Monohan, Patrick, J. Jr. 1971. “Aspect in the Latin Verb”. In Proceedings of the Pacific Northewest Conference on Foreigh Languages 22nd annual meeting. pp. 197-201.
Palmer, Frank, R. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge University Press.
Posner, Rebecca. 1996. The Romance Languages. Cambridge University Press.
Quer, Josep. 2001. “Interpreting mood”. Probus 13:81-111.
Quer, Josep. 2006. “Subjunctives”. Blackwell Syntax Companion ed. by Martin Everaert & Henk Van Riemsdjik. Blackwell Publishing Company.
Schwegler, Armin. 1988. Analyticity and Syntheticity: A Diachronic Perspective with Special Reference to Romance Languages, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 1988.
Shlonsky, Ur. 2004. Enclisis and proclisis. In Rizzi, Luigi (ed.) The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 2. Oxford University Press, New York. Pp. 329-353.
Smith Carlota. 1991. The parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Soare, Elena. 2006. Morphosyntactic mismatches revisted: the case of Romanian Supine. Acta Linguistica Hungarica.
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. "Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs". Language 76: 859-890.
Squartini, Mario. 1998. Verbal Periphrases in Romance. Berlin/NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Spencer, Andrew & Ana R. Luis. 2012. Clitics: an Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Torrego, Esther. 1998. The Dependencies of Objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zribi-Hertz, A. 1987. "La réflexivité ergative en français modern". Le français moderne 55.
Zwicky, Arnold. 1977. On clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Additional Reading Material:
Course/Module evaluation:
End of year written/oral examination 0 %
Presentation 0 %
Participation in Tutorials 0 %
Project work 0 %
Assignments 100 %
Reports 0 %
Research project 0 %
Quizzes 0 %
Other 0 %
Additional information:
|
