Bangor Linguistics Circle: Dr Evangelia Kyritsi & Dr Michalis Georigiafentis
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
In this Linguistics Circle event, Dr Evangelia Kyritsi and Dr Michalis Georgiafentis (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) will be presenting their research as part of a research collaboration visit partially funded by the Taith mobility scheme. Come along in person or join us online!
16:00: Dr Evangelia Kyritsi (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) 'Children with speech and language difficulties in bi/multilingual home and school settings'
Abstract: We are citizens of a bi/multilingual world community. This means that a significant number of children with speech and language difficulties are raised in a bi/multilingual family or they live in a majority language environment. They also attend a school where at least one foreign language is taught or, in some cases, a bilingual educational approach is followed altogether. Despite the inevitable contact with bi/multilingualism in one’s life, despite the advantages of bi/multilingualism and despite the need to be able to face this new reality, families of children with speech and language difficulties continue to receive advice against the use of their home language with their child. In other words, these families are usually encouraged towards adopting one language, i.e. the majority language. A similar approach is usually followed at school, where either students with speech and language difficulties are exempted from foreign language classes or they are essentially passive listeners.
In my talk, I am going to argue that this approach has a lot of short-term and long-term disadvantages not only for the child but also for the family, the school and the community in general. I will also present data which do not support the common belief that bilingualism impacts on language development in children with speech and language difficulties. I will conclude with underlining issues that need to be taken into consideration with reference to foreign language teaching to students with speech and language difficulties.
16:30: Dr Michalis Georgiafentis (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) 'Contrast in Greek- a comparative perspective'
Abstract: In this paper we examine the category of Contrast in relation to the basic notions of Information Structure, namely focus and topic, aiming at investigating the behaviour of Greek with respect to the various types of Contrast (see Georgiafentis & Tsokoglou 2020, Georgiou 2020) in comparison with other languages (Finnish, Hungarian, Italian, Spanish, German, English) for which relevant accounts exist (see, for instance, Molnár & Winkler 2006).
Languages are parameterized as far as the realization of Contrast is concerned, both on a syntactic level (existence of a Contrast position, obligatoriness of movement of the contrastive phrase, relation to the verb position), and on a phonological level with respect to intonation (see Skopeteas 2016 for Greek, and Kiss 1998, Zubizarreta 1998, Breul 2004, among many others).
First, by applying a number of diagnostic criteria (e.g. highlighting, dominant contrast, membership in a set, limited set of candidates, explicit mentioning of alternatives), we identify the environments where contrastive structures appear. Furthermore, we refer to the relation of Contrast with focus and topic, distinguishing two types, namely contrastive focus and contrastive topic. In particular, we draw our attention to the following:
(a) The syntactic realization of contrastive focus as well as the mechanisms involved in its derivation (1), investigating whether Greek employs the movement mechanism to the left periphery to a position adjacent to the verb (as in Hungarian) (2b) or without the restriction on verb adjacency (as in Finnish) (2b):
(1) a. O JANIS efaje tin turta. SFocusVO
- O janis efaje TIN TURTA. SVOFocus
(2) a. TIN TURTA efaje o janis. OFocusVS
- efaje tin turta O JANIS. VOSFocus
‘John ate the cake.’
(b) The realization of contrastive topic, comparing topicalisation (clitic doubling) structures (3b) with left dislocation ones (3a) and taking into account the role of intonation, i.e. the existence of an i-topic and its coexistence with focus (as in English and German) (4):
(3) pjos efaje ta γlika?
‘Who ate the sweets?’
- tin TURTA, tin efaje o janis. OTopic,cliticVS
- # tin efaje o janis tin TURTA. cliticVSOTopic
(4) TIN TURTA tin efaje o janis. OTopiccliticVSFocus
‘John ate the cake.’
Finally, by considering the behaviour of certain exclamation particles as Contrast indicators, we examine whether the Kontrast projection, put forward by Molnár (2001) for Finnish and further extending the left periphery (Rizzi 1997), is required in the Greek clause, leading to a different classification of the information structure categories.