Research master thesis | Linguistics (research) (MA)
open access
This thesis aims to describe the noun class system and its interaction with semantics in the Tanzanian Bantu language Kimbugwe (ISO 639-3). This thesis adds to the existing literature on Kimbugwe,...Show moreThis thesis aims to describe the noun class system and its interaction with semantics in the Tanzanian Bantu language Kimbugwe (ISO 639-3). This thesis adds to the existing literature on Kimbugwe, but also has typological value, and shows the linguistic diversity of the area the language is spoken in. The main research question of the thesis is; ‘How does the noun class system of Kimbugwe interact with semantics?’. The thesis shows that the noun class system interacts with semantics on a lexical level, through the inherent semantics of the noun classes, on a morphological level, through the derivational semantics of the noun classes, and on a syntactic level, through the semantic agreement of the noun classes.Show less
Research master thesis | Linguistics (research) (MA)
open access
The basis of this study is an observation of a Mandarin expression, which was heard in a Chinese television programme. The expression is qí le guài le, which I tentatively translate as ‘how strange...Show moreThe basis of this study is an observation of a Mandarin expression, which was heard in a Chinese television programme. The expression is qí le guài le, which I tentatively translate as ‘how strange’. Double le is well-described for verb–object (VO) compounds, as in nà le mèr le ‘have been perplexed’. However, qíguài is listed in dictionaries as an adjective meaning ‘strange’ and as a verb meaning ‘to find strange’. It is not documented as a VO, raising questions about its syntactic status. In this study, I investigate what qí le guài le means, what each instance of le contributes to its meaning, and whether qí and guài should be analysed as two different syntactic elements. The second paragraph contains an overview of the methodology. Here, it is explained that I understand syntax primarily as the study of relations between meanings. This contravenes a popular view of syntax as primarily concerning relations between forms. I also make a fundamental distinction between meaning and interpretation. In the following paragraphs, the analyses are presented step by step, and any linguistic jargon is explained and illustrated with examples. The reader is not expected to have prior knowledge of either Mandarin or linguistics.Show less
Research master thesis | Linguistics (research) (MA)
open access
In Dutch, one can order a drink, denoted by a mass noun, using phrases such as: Ik will graag twee (glazen) rode wijn, "I would like two glasses of red wine". Interestingly, the usage of the...Show moreIn Dutch, one can order a drink, denoted by a mass noun, using phrases such as: Ik will graag twee (glazen) rode wijn, "I would like two glasses of red wine". Interestingly, the usage of the classifier, in this case glazen ‘glasses’, is not obligatory. Borer (2005) argues that such sentences, without classifiers, are possible in a register she calls Restaurantese. This construction, however, is not possible with all adjective-noun combinations. Therefore, this study proposes two main hypotheses, similar to van Erkel (2020). First, one could argue that the acceptability of these configurations depends on the syntactic classification of the adjective. Second, one could argue that it depends on the relation between the adjective and the noun, which I refer to with the term combinability. There are different approaches one could take to define combinability. This study takes three different approaches: the collocation of the adjective and the noun; the familiarity of the combination; the chance one could find a combination on a menu, which I call the Restaurantese reading. Through different surveys, this study has shown that the syntactic level of the adjectives does not influence the acceptability of sentences in which you order drinks in Dutch. The combinability of the adjective-noun pair, on the other hand, plays a large role in the acceptability. This effect is, remarkably, not restricted to Restaurantese expressions. By comparing adjective-noun pairs that were ranking differently amongst the three approaches for combinability, I show that the Restaurantese reading is the best indicator for the acceptability of different adjective-noun pairs. Then I discuss the connection between the sentences with and without the overt classifier. I argue that the configurations without the overt classifier contain a covert classifier that introduces countability and the portion needed to express such sentences. Lastly, I note that the acceptability of these configurations is not set in stone. It is hugely dependent on cultural history and the usage of language by all its language users on the one hand, and one’s personal background and world knowledge on the other hand.Show less
