Docstoc

Transitivity and Perfectivity in HINDI-URDU

Document Sample
Transitivity and Perfectivity in HINDI-URDU Powered By Docstoc
					Linguistics meets HUHL
       Teaching

    Gyanam Mahajan
        UCLA
   General profile of a H-U HL
   Linguistic Profile of a H-U HL
   Aims and Goals
   Reality check
   Some suggestions
            HS




Is Brown Voice brown?
HL
              Home Input Lx  HLx

   ABCD or FOB
   Frequency of usage
   Domains of usage
   Weekend schools
   OCs
   Grandparents living with HL
   Regular travel to SA
            The H-U Learner

 “non-heritage” (monolingual or other non-SA HL)
 Hindi-Urdu exposure
 Other Indo-Aryan language exposure (e.g.
  Gujarati, Punjabi, Marathi, Bengali)
 Dravidian language exposure
 AustroAsiatic or TibetoBurman
 Fijian Hindi, Guyanese Hindi
 South Africa, Kenya or Nigeria
 Middle East
   Input HLx
   Input HL2
   Input Linguistic Area L
   Input SA English
   Input Bollywood




 Multilingual, multicultural
  exposure at home for H-U
 And BOLLYWOOD
 The idealized HLS
 Abstract away from specific differences so
  that we can make some generalizations
Proficiency?

 Video.mp4
                    NS, HS, L2
   Proficiency – what does it mean?
   “I think that, like, she is, I mean, y’know, yeah!”
   NL – not “learned”
   L2 relies heavily on “learning” and the learning is
    linear

 What about HL?
 Non-linear acquisition for HL (certain domains,
  certain areas of linguistic knowledge and certain
  lacunae
            Linguistic Profile
Phonetics and Phonology
 Retroflexion
 Prosodic system (e.g. no schwa in open
  syllables – especially relevant as they learn
  to read Hindi or Urdu script)
 Simple sentences WO fine
 PP, adjective NP, embedded clause WO,
  Correlatives
 Floating aspiration
- Can hear the aspiration and are aware of it
  but random attachment to any appropriate
  segment (gadhaa vs. ghadaa)
- Sequence of segment and h is converted
  into an aspirated segment (dhaii for dahii)
 Different subject types
- Problem with sub+ne and problem with
  object agreement
- Sub+ko is fine but problem with object
  agreement
               Subject types
   Regular subject 1
   Regular subject 2
   Dative subjects
   Ergative subjects
         Nominative subjects
1. john lambaa thaa    John tall was
2. Mary lambii thii    Mary tall was
3. John tairtaa thaa   John used to swim
4. Mary tairtii thii   Mary used to swim
                Nom -Acc

1. john kelaa khaataa thaa    John used to
                              eat a banana
2. mary kelaa khaatii thii    Mary used
                              to eat a banana
3. John kelaa khaa rahaa thaa      John was
                                   eating a b.
4. Mary kelaa khaa rahii thii      Mary was
                                   eating a b.
           Dative Subjects
1. John ko kelaa miltaa thaa
   John used to find banana(s)
2. John ko bukhaar thaa
   John had a fever
3. John ko biimaarii thii
   John had a sickness
4. Mary ko kelaa khaanaa paRtaa thaa
   Mary used to be forced to eat a b.
                        Perfect
1.    John tairaa                  John swam
2.    Mary tairii                  Mary swam
3.    John Delhi pahuNcaa          John arrived in Delhi
4.    Mary Delhi pahuNcii          Mary arrived in Delhi
5.    John giraa                   John fell
6.    Mary girii                   Mary fell
7.    John ko kelaa milaa    John found/got/received a b.
8.    Mary ko kelaa milaa    Mary     “
9.    John ko billii milii   John found/got/recd. a cat
10.   Mary ko billii milii   “
               Ergative
 John ne kelaa khaayaa thaa
  John erg banana eat+PERF past
  John had eaten a banana
 Mary ne kelaa khaayaa thaa
  Mary erg banana eat+PERF past
  Mary had eaten a banana
          Object Agreement
 John ne roTii khaayii thii
  John erg tortilla eat+PERF past
  John had eaten a tortilla (fem.)

 Mary ne roTii khaayii thii
  Mary erg tortilla (fem) eat +PERF past
  Mary had eaten a tortilla (fem.)
         Non-Overt Object
 John ne khaayaa
  John erg eat+PERF
  John ate
 Mary ne bahut paRhaa
  Mary erg a lot read
  Mary read a lot
 HL tremendous problems with ergative
  subjects
 Rarely any problems with sub+ko
 (never produce * maiN kelaa caahiye
                   I banana want
Transitive and Intransitive
                 Ergative
 A binary dichotomy for transitivity does not
 work :

Dative verbs are “+transitive”
Non-overt objects “+transitive”
Imperfect         could be “+transitive”
             Hopper and Thompson (1980)
                           HIGH                     LOW
A. Participants     2 or more, A and        1 participant
B. Kinesis           O                       non-action
C. Aspect           action                  atelic
D. Punctuality      telic                   non-punctual
E. Volitionality
                    punctual                non-volitional
F. Affirmation
                    volitional              negative
G. Mode
                    affirmative             irrealis
H. Agency
                    realis                  A low in potency
I. Affectedness
   of O             A high in potency       O not affected
J. Individuation    O totally affected      O non-individuated
   of O
                    O highly
               Dative Subjects
   Recipient
   Experiencer
   Non-Volitional
   Non-action
   Non-agentive
   Afflicted
   Affected


LOW TRANSITIVITY
         Nominative subjects
 One participant
 Volitional
 Imperfect



LOW transitivity
           Ergative subject
 PERFECT – act/event completed
 Agentive (similar to a by-phrase)
 Two participants
 Affected Object


HIGH transitivity
Prototypical transitive events



  Erg sub
 dative


           dative
 One participant


           nom
 Two participants, Imperfect



  nom
 HinUrdu scale:

  Low -------------------------------- High
One participant ---- non-volitional ----two participant----action; perfect; O affected
             What is HL?
 Dominant language interference
 Markedness – unmarked forms –
  teleologically motivated
 pidgins as languages
HomeInput  HL instruction  ??
 The learner (caution: HL may not know why they
  want to take your class; credit or non-credit)
 The parents (may or may not value an HL class)
 The Instructor (may have irrelevant pet topics,
  strange reasons and weird agendas)
 The Administration – may not value the HL class,
  brown students are all NS of H-U; may actually
  look for an instructor who can teach Thai and
  Indonesian or have a Nepali NS teach Hindi
        H-U is the new French
 Increase in number of total students – big increase
   in heritage and non-SA heritage students (the
   Slumdog Effect)
 Lack of funding
 University level class
 Within an HL class – what to teach and practical
   vs. language teaching (taxi stand kahaaN hai vs.
   yataayaat kaa saadhan kahaaN milegaa)
 similar to
Scintillate scintillate dimunitive asteroid
How I speculate as to your identity
             Overt Instruction
 Cross language similarity reduces impact of
  memorization
 Helps both Heritage language learners and
  others
 Avoid translation method (more conceptual)
 meta-language teaching (University level
  students)
 Efficiently fix some HL errors
      Structure and Ambiguity
 The chickens are ready to eat.
     Structure and meaning
 Flying planes can be dangerous.
What are you teaching?



And why?

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:1/25/2012
language:English
pages:44