3/29/2023 0 Comments German grammar cases![]() ![]() When I first learned this string of words, I learned it as a rhyme: durch, für, gegen, ohne, wieder, um, kannst du nicht die Akkusative, dann bist du wirklich dumm! There are, however, more prepositions than those 6, which take Accusative: DurchĪlong, down -This preposition however goes after the object: Sie geht den Fluss entlang./ If you want to master the German Language you need to practice the prepositions and which case each preposition take – you can of course always look this up in a dictionary, but knowing most of them will save you time writing/translating. This means that each preposition take an object in Accusative, Dative or Genitive – some prepositions even have two cases to choose from, which I’ll get into later. In German the prepositions take 3 cases: Accusative, Dative and/or Genitive. Both in German and English the prepositions are flexible and there isn’t always an equivalent in the other language as most languages have their own way of expressing a relationship. ![]() Prepositions are placed before the article, adjective and noun and tell the position of the noun/person etc. This post will therefore be about German prepositions and which case they take.Ī preposition is “a word that shows the relationship of a noun or a pronoun to some other word in the sentence”(1) and it links nouns, pronouns and phrases to other words in a sentence. Predominantly negative affective feedback whether expected or unexpected is likely to result in abortion of further communication attempts.In my last blog post I wrote about German adjectives’ inflections, in which I also shortly mentioned German prepositions. However, if feedback on the affective dimension is not predominantly as expected, and predominantly positive, the feedback on the cognitive dimension will lose much of its force. Thus, the tendency toward fossilization of either correct or incorrect forms is governed by feedback principally on the cognitive dimension. When the configuration of feedback to the learner becomes predominantly expected positive feedback on the cognitive dimension it is predicted that the learner's level of proficiency will tend to fossilize. It is argued that expected negative feedback on the cognitive dimension of language usage is the principal de-stabilizing factor in the development of learner grammars. ![]() A distinction is also made between expected and unexpected feedback. A distinction is made between affective and cognitive dimensions of a multidimensional channel of human communication. Thus, evidence from the study suggests that, in terms of implications for teaching, an MEP-inspired analysis of multiple factors could be significant in the elaboration of pedagogical strategies which may prevent or delay fossilization in cases where explicit negative evidence by the teacher seems to have had no effect.Ī cybernetic model of factors involved in the fossilization of grammatical and lexical forms in learner grammars is offered. We present findings from several different empirical perspectives including the subject’s introspective account as ‘secondary data’, which serve to confirm the pedagogical usefulness of the MEP insofar as two processes dominated by L1 typological influence can be seen to underlie the persistence and resistance of the structure in question, with ‘transfer-of-training’ conspiring with language transfer to stabilize the structure. Such a study is important in that most SLA results relate to English as source or target language, and the resulting conclusions are thus highly limited in both theoretical and practical terms. In this article we focus on one particular instance of a persistent interlanguage structure that emerges from a longitudinal case study of Thai-Norwegian interlanguage, an interlanguage which, to our knowledge, has not been discussed in the literature before. There is also an important pedagogical corollary attached to the MEP, which is described below. A serious empirical pedagogy would have interlanguage analysis central to pedagogical decision-making.We look here at error resistance in light of interlanguage theory, specifically the Multiple Effects Principle (MEP henceforth Selinker and Lakshmanan, 1992), which predicts that when language transfer works in tandem with one or more second language acquisition processes, there is a greater tendency for interlanguage structures to stabilize, leading to possible fossilization in spite of repeated pedagogical intervention. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |