Matching Items (2)
Description
The nature of imperative syntax has remained an elusive, yet ever-present, subject in syntactic research, spanning several decades of linguistic inquiry and analysis, and it is therefore unsurprising that current views on the subject continue to be somewhat divided. This thesis examines the syntactic evidence from imperatives in Old English and ultimately seeks to develop a picture of the possibilities for imperative clauses in OE alongside an overall framework for imperative syntax within contemporary theoretical models of syntactic structure. The general, perceived pattern for OE imperative clauses (e.g. Millward 1971) is “verb−first,” and statistical data from the corpora confirm this perception, with the majority of imperative clauses exhibiting the verb in clause−initial position. Imperative constructions with post− and preverbal overt subjects are also examined at length, and postverbal subjects are found to be the majority case. These results are further expanded by examinations of data from verb−second and verb−third contexts, which include possibilities for topicalized constituents and adverbs. Ultimately, the relative position of both the verb and the subject and the relationship between these and other elements in the totality of the data provide essential clues for constructing a clearer model of OE imperative syntax. Within a relatively rich cartographic framework (Rizzi 1997), I therefore argue that the imperative verb is standardly fronted to the head of ForceP, with the overt subject remaining in spec−FinP, in parallel with other models for imperative syntax and OE syntax. Exceptions to this pattern for imperatives which suggest lower positions for the imperative verb (e.g. verb−second and verb−third constructions) are also accounted for, all with the central goal of demonstrating a consistent pattern underlying the realization of imperative syntax in Old English.
ContributorsKruger, William Wriley (Author) / Gelderen, Elly van (Thesis advisor) / Adams, Karen (Committee member) / Major, Roy (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
When cartographers and graphic designers create maps they choose typefaces. Often, serif and sans serif typefaces are paired together to represent different information on a map. Typefaces have a communicated tone and choosing the correct typeface combination to send the intended message can be challenging. The purpose of this study was to create an analysis of the aesthetic characteristics of typeface pairings to assist map creators when choosing typefaces. An online survey was utilized to collect responses from graphic designers who have been trained in at least one year or more in design from a higher education institution. There were 30 participants in the study and they scored 24 typeface pairings, 12 differentiating and 12 superfamily, on 48 maps. Scoring was done on eight aesthetic characteristics: friendly, whimsical, cheap, neutral, bland, corporate, serious and modern. The researcher conducted an analysis of each typeface’s microaesthetics and then compared these to the survey’s scored aesthetic characteristics. It was concluded that there are many factors that go into comparing the typeface pairings of serif and sans serif typeface combinations. However, a selection of a superfamily typeface pairing is better than selecting a differentiating pairing. Future research should focus on conducting studies with a varying amount of typeface styles. Also, to include less maps per survey and a survey completion status bar.
ContributorsFinden, Nathan (Author) / Ralston, Laurie (Thesis advisor) / Carrasquilla, Christina (Committee member) / Westover, William (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018