Refine
Year of publication
- 2009 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Baltikum (1)
- Baskisch (1)
- Bildung (1)
- Finnisch (1)
- Hyperkorrektur (1)
- Kontrastive Grammatik (1)
- Lettgallen (1)
- Linguistic Landscape (1)
- Mehrsprachigkeit (1)
- Morphosyntax (1)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
- Peer-Review (1)
Publisher
- Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis (2) (remove)
“Linguistic Landscapes” (LL) is a research method which has become increasingly popular in recent years. In this paper, we will first explain the method itself and discuss some of its fundamental assumptions. We will then recall the basic traits of multilingualism in the Baltic States, before presenting results from our project carried out together with a group of Master students of Philology in several medium-sized towns in the Baltic States, focussing on our home town of Rēzekne in the highly multilingual region of Latgale in Eastern Latvia. In the discussion of some of the results, we will introduce the concept of “Legal Hypercorrection” as a term for the stricter compliance of language laws than necessary. The last part will report on advantages of LL for educational purposes of multilingualism, and for developing discussions on multilingualism among the general public.
In this paper we address the question of what is needed, in terms of morphosyntactic encoding, to relate a so-called verb-specific modifier to a nominal head. For the purposes of this paper we shall assume that the notion of a verb-specific modifier includes adverbs and their phrasal or clausal projections, adpositional phrases, and noun phrases featuring a particular semantic case such as locative or instrumental. Noun-specific modifiers, in turn, are considered to be first and foremost adjectives and adjective phrases, next participles and their phrasal projections and, finally, relative clauses.1 The basic motivation underlying this distinction relates to markedness.