Language-Specific Guidelines

Senin, 25 Agustus 2008
As indicated above, certain changes were made in the Provisional Guidelines between l982 and l986. These changes were due in part to concerns about the applicability of the Provisional Guidelines to languages other than Spanish, French, German, and Italian. The Provisional Guidelines made reference to the learner's accuracy in using common Western grammatical constructions, such as subject-verb and noun-adjective agreement, tenses, and passives.

These constructions either do not exist or do not pose a problem in the learning of many non-Western languages taught in U.S. schools, such as Japanese, Chinese, and Arabic. As a result, specific mention of these constructions was eliminated from the l986 version. At the same time, a series of language-specific guidelines was developed through grants from the U.S. Department of Education. These guidelines include considerable detail regarding learner accuracy in using specific constructions of that language at each level. Initially, committees were formed to work on language-specific guidelines in Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Hindi, and Arabic.

A draft of the guidelines in each language was published or circulated, and comments were invited from other teachers of the language. Subsequently, they were revised and republished (ACTFL, 1987a, 1987b, 1988, 1989, 1990). Today, additional language-specific guidelines are under development or exist as circulating drafts for Hebrew, Korean, Hausa, Indonesian, and a number of other languages. These guidelines have exerted considerable influence on the organization of curriculum as well as on the pedagogical approaches employed by instructors in the classroom (Thompson et al., 1988).
Selengkapnya...

Definity Article

Rabu, 20 Agustus 2008
First off, the idea that this has anything to do with the mass/count distinction is pretty implausible on its face: Both the relevant nouns are countable by the familiar tests.

I do think that morphosyntax (and it's relation to semantics) must play a role, though.

Nominalizations like 'punishment' often have this abstract reading in which they seem to be the *name* of a certain kind of action ('punishment,' 'destruction,' 'failure'), so while you can talk about instances ('3 failures'), you can also refer to the action by name ('failure is not an option'). Here, the absence of the definite article has to do with the name-y quality, which, in turn, is connected to uniqueness presuppositions, etc. You see this behavior very clearly in gerunds ('running is a healthy activity').

'Penalty,' on the other hand, is not one of these kinds of nominalizations. In fact, it's not a nominalization of a verb at all--both 'penalty' and 'penalize' are synchronically related to a base adjective 'penal.'

Maybe this is more of a description than an explanation, but I lean towards attributing the absence of the definite article in 'capital punishment' to the semantics of a class of derivational suffixes.
Selengkapnya...