Author:

Keywords:

ITEC

Abstract:

This doctoral thesis includes a corpus-based contrastive study of the French and Dutch demonstrative determiner in native language(L1) and learner language (L2). This study starts with a theoretical section in which we develop a systematic model of the referential uses of the demonstrative noun phrase (DemNP) by means of a critical literature study combined with a qualitative analysis of authentic examples. This triangular model does not only account for the standard DemNP uses, such as direct anaphora and situational uses, but also for less frequent and less documented uses, such as classifying generic uses and several meta-linguistic and meta-discursive textual uses. This model also seeks to offer a solution for the definition and the delineation of the deictic-discursive and recognitial uses of the DemNP on the one hand and of the dichotomy between pragmatic and semantic definiteness on the other. Subsequently, we base our study for the most part on Granger’s Integrated Contrastive Model (1996) and we combine several contrastive L1 and L2 analyses in order to distinguish translation mechanisms from structural and distributional differences between the French and Dutch demonstrative determiner and to investigate to what extent these differences have an impact on written L2 productions. In order to examine the central research questions with respect to the descriptive part and the applied part of our doctoral thesis, we carry out three studies, each with a different focus: source language vs . target language (L1), original language vs . original language (L1) and original language vs . learner language (L1 – L2). For this purpose, we use two written L1 parallel corpora, viz. the Dutch Parallel Corpus and the Namur Corpus , and two learner corpora, viz. the Leerdercorpus Nederlands that contains 1315 Dutch texts written by French learners and the self-made Leerdercorpus Frans that includes 1402 French texts written by Dutch learners (B2-C1 level). The first corpus study shows that only 48,45% of the demonstrative determiners are translated by a demonstrative in the L1 corpus. In 20,02% of the cases, the demonstrative determiner is translated by the definite article or vice versa while 31,54% is translated by another grammatical element (e.g. by an adverb, a personal pronoun, an indefinite determiner) or vice versa . These shifts can be explained by translation mechanisms as well as by the first indications of divergences between the use of the French and Dutch demonstrative determiner. With respect to the translation mechanisms, we made a distinction between additions, omissions and reformulations on the levelof the entire noun phrase, which are inherent in the translation process, and syntagmatic and paradigmatic explicitation and implicitation within the noun phrase, which are also inherent in the translation process but produce a specific determiner shift. By focusing then on the shifts on the determiner level, we observed, next to some (semi-)fixed constructions (e.g. à l’époque vs. in die tijd ), 2,23 times more instances of French demonstrative – Dutch definite article (irrespective of the translation direction) than Dutch demonstrative – French definite article . This clearly points to distributional divergences between French andDutch. For the second corpus study we applied our model of the referential uses of the DemNP on French and Dutch L1 productions. This allowed us to determine quantitative divergences for direct (FR > DU) and indirect (FR DU), situational (FR For the third corpus study we applied our model on the two learner corpora in order to make a detailed comparison of the uses of the French and Dutch DemNP in L1 and in L2. This allowed us to observe a general overuse of direct demonstrative anaphora and resumptive DemNPs and an important underuse of recognitial and situational DemNPs in the L2 corpora. We explainthese divergences mainly by language acquisition factors, such as lexical knowledge, inferential capacities and encyclopaedic knowledge. Subsequently, we showed through error analysis that the system and the use of the Dutch demonstrative determiner is a more difficult language acquisition problem for French learners (B2-C1 level) than for Dutch learners who acquire the system and the use of the French demonstrative determiner.In particular, for French learners of Dutch, there should be paid more attention to the morphology of the Dutch demonstrative determiner and tothe structural distinction proximal vs. distal on the level of the demonstrative, which differ in both languages. Furthermore, the distributional differences between the French and Dutch demonstrative determiner and the use of the entire determiner system, which cause erroneous overuse as well as underuse on L2 level (e.g. (un)appropriate use of the determiner + N + referential marker construction), deserve more attentionby Dutch learners of French. This contrastive study has thanks to its innovative methodological approach immediate relevancefor the contrastive and descriptive French and Dutch grammar. In addition, it offers an empirically founded contribution to the theoretic reflection on definite determiner systems and grammaticalization and to the debate on second language acquisition and L1 transfer.