Erwtensoep is geen borsóleves: Vormverschillen tussen Nederlandse en Hongaarse samenstellingen veroorzaken conceptuele verschillen

A tétel rövid nézete
dc.creatorBanga, Arina
dc.date2015-09-01
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-21T08:42:22Z
dc.date.available2023-02-21T08:42:22Z
dc.descriptionThe present study investigates whether form differences between Dutch and Hungarian influence the interpretations that speakers have. The Dutch plural suffix –en, for example erwt-en (‘pea-s’), is often homographic and homophonous with the linking element in noun-noun compounds, for example erwtensoep (‘pea + en + soup’). Hungarian, in contrast, has no such form correspondence. The interpretation of Dutch and Hungarian compounds was investigated. We found a difference between Hungarian speakers rating Hungarian modifiers and Dutch speakers rating Dutch modifiers: the plurality ratings for the number of peas in erwtensoep, was higher than those for the number of peas in of borsóleves. In addition, when rating Dutch compounds, native Hungarian speakers seem to rely more on form than native Dutch speakers.de-DE
dc.descriptionThe present study investigates whether form differences between Dutch and Hungarian influence the interpretations that speakers have. The Dutch plural suffix –en, for example erwt-en (‘pea-s’), is often homographic and homophonous with the linking element in noun-noun compounds, for example erwtensoep (‘pea + en + soup’). Hungarian, in contrast, has no such form correspondence. The interpretation of Dutch and Hungarian compounds was investigated. We found a difference between Hungarian speakers rating Hungarian modifiers and Dutch speakers rating Dutch modifiers: the plurality ratings for the number of peas in erwtensoep, was higher than those for the number of peas in of borsóleves. In addition, when rating Dutch compounds, native Hungarian speakers seem to rely more on form than native Dutch speakers.en-US
dc.descriptionThe present study investigates whether form differences between Dutch and Hungarian influence the interpretations that speakers have. The Dutch plural suffix –en, for example erwt-en (‘pea-s’), is often homographic and homophonous with the linking element in noun-noun compounds, for example erwtensoep (‘pea + en + soup’). Hungarian, in contrast, has no such form correspondence. The interpretation of Dutch and Hungarian compounds was investigated. We found a difference between Hungarian speakers rating Hungarian modifiers and Dutch speakers rating Dutch modifiers: the plurality ratings for the number of peas in erwtensoep, was higher than those for the number of peas in of borsóleves. In addition, when rating Dutch compounds, native Hungarian speakers seem to rely more on form than native Dutch speakers.hu-HU
dc.descriptionThe present study investigates whether form differences between Dutch and Hungarian influence the interpretations that speakers have. The Dutch plural suffix –en, for example erwt-en (‘pea-s’), is often homographic and homophonous with the linking element in noun-noun compounds, for example erwtensoep (‘pea + en + soup’). Hungarian, in contrast, has no such form correspondence. The interpretation of Dutch and Hungarian compounds was investigated. We found a difference between Hungarian speakers rating Hungarian modifiers and Dutch speakers rating Dutch modifiers: the plurality ratings for the number of peas in erwtensoep, was higher than those for the number of peas in of borsóleves. In addition, when rating Dutch compounds, native Hungarian speakers seem to rely more on form than native Dutch speakers.nl-NL
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.identifierhttps://ojs.lib.unideb.hu/actaneer/article/view/10489
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2437/346291
dc.languagenld
dc.publisherDebreceni Egyetemi Kiadóen-US
dc.relationhttps://ojs.lib.unideb.hu/actaneer/article/view/10489/9334
dc.rightsCopyright (c) 2015 Acta Neerlandicaen-US
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0en-US
dc.sourceActa Neerlandica; Nr. 11 (2015): Taal toetsen; 7-35de-DE
dc.sourceActa Neerlandica; No. 11 (2015): Taal toetsen; 7-35en-US
dc.sourceActa Neerlandica; No 11 (2015): Taal toetsen; 7-35fr-FR
dc.sourceActa Neerlandica; szám 11 (2015): Taal toetsen; 7-35hu-HU
dc.sourceActa Neerlandica; N. 11 (2015): Taal toetsen; 7-35it-IT
dc.sourceActa Neerlandica; № 11 (2015): Taal toetsen; 7-35ru-RU
dc.source1587-8171
dc.subjectconceptualizationen-US
dc.subjectsecond language learningen-US
dc.subjectnominal compoundsen-US
dc.subjectDutchen-US
dc.subjectHungarianen-US
dc.subjectconceptualizationhu-HU
dc.subjectsecond language learninghu-HU
dc.subjectnominal compoundshu-HU
dc.subjectDutchhu-HU
dc.subjectHungarianhu-HU
dc.subjectconceptualizationde-DE
dc.subjectsecond language learningde-DE
dc.subjectnominal compoundsde-DE
dc.subjectDutchde-DE
dc.subjectHungariande-DE
dc.subjectconceptualizationnl-NL
dc.subjectsecond language learningnl-NL
dc.subjectnominal compoundsnl-NL
dc.subjectDutchnl-NL
dc.subjectHungariannl-NL
dc.titleErwtensoep is geen borsóleves: Vormverschillen tussen Nederlandse en Hongaarse samenstellingen veroorzaken conceptuele verschillende-DE
dc.titleErwtensoep is geen borsóleves: Vormverschillen tussen Nederlandse en Hongaarse samenstellingen veroorzaken conceptuele verschillenen-US
dc.titleErwtensoep is geen borsóleves: Vormverschillen tussen Nederlandse en Hongaarse samenstellingen veroorzaken conceptuele verschillenhu-HU
dc.titleErwtensoep is geen borsóleves: Vormverschillen tussen Nederlandse en Hongaarse samenstellingen veroorzaken conceptuele verschillennl-NL
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Fájlok
Eredeti köteg (ORIGINAL bundle)
Megjelenítve 1 - 1 (Összesen 1)
Nem elérhető
Név:
pdf.pdf
Méret:
11.9 MB
Formátum:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Letöltés
Gyűjtemények
Acta Neerlandica