Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Part of a Book (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Keywords
- Schwedisch (5) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (5) (remove)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (4)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
Publisher
- Paderborn University (1)
- Schmidt (1)
- Universita degli Studi di Bologna (1)
- University of Paderborn (1)
- de Gruyter (1)
We investigate the optional omission of the infinitival marker in a Swedish future tense construction. During the last two decades the frequency of omission has been rapidly increasing, and this process has received considerable attention in the literature. We test whether the knowledge which has been accumulated can yield accurate predictions of language variation and change. We extracted all occurrences of the construction from a very large collection of corpora. The dataset was automatically annotated with language-internal predictors which have previously been shown or hypothesized to affect the variation. We trained several models in order to make two kinds of predictions: whether the marker will be omitted in a specific utterance and how large the proportion of omissions will be for a given time period. For most of the approaches we tried, we were not able to achieve a better-than-baseline performance. The only exception was predicting the proportion of omissions using autoregressive integrated moving average models for one-step-ahead forecast, and in this case time was the only predictor that mattered. Our data suggest that most of the language-internal predictors do have some effect on the variation, but the effect is not strong enough to yield reliable predictions.
Im Deutschen und anderen europäischen Sprachen können Demonstrativa das Antezedens von Relativsätzen bilden oder als Determinator eines solchen Antezedens fungieren. Konstruktionen dieser Art weisen Besonderheiten in Bezug auf Form und Bedeutung auf: Einerseits finden sich Demonstrativa, die nicht oder nur marginal mit appositiven Relativsätzen kombiniert werden können, andererseits solche, die entweder keine restriktiven Relativsätze zulassen oder sich mit diesen nur in speziellen, nichtdeiktischen und nichtphorischen Bedeutungen kombinieren lassen. Zumindest einige dieser Besonderheiten scheinen auf allgemeinere, sprachübergreifende Beschränkungen hinzuweisen. So zeigt sich tendenziell, dass die Kombinierbarkeit von Demonstrativa mit restriktiven Relativsätzen mit der deiktischen Stärke des Demonstrativums korreliert: Distanzmarkierende und in diesem Sinn deiktisch starke Demonstrativa schließen restriktive Relativsätze tendenziell aus, während distanzneutrale oder nichtdeiktisch verwendbare Demonstrativa sie in der Regel zulassen. Beschränkungen dieser Art werden anhand des Deutschen, Französischen und Schwedischen aufgezeigt.
Trubetzkoy's recognition of a delimitative function of phonology, serving to signal boundaries between morphological units, is expressed in terms of alignment constraints in Optimality Theory, where the relevant constraints require specific morphological boundaries to coincide with phonological structure (Trubetzkoy 1936, 1939, McCarthy & Prince 1993). The approach pursued in the present article is to investigate the distribution of phonological boundary signals to gain insight into the criteria underlying morphological analysis. The evidence from English and Swedish suggests that necessary and sufficient conditions for word-internal morphological analysis concern the recognizability of head constituents, which include the rightmost members of compounds and head affixes. The claim is that the stability of word-internal boundary effects in historical perspective cannot in general be sufficiently explained in terms of memorization and imitation of phonological word form. Rather, these effects indicate a morphological parsing mechanism based on the recognition of word-internal head constituents. Head affixes can be shown to contrast systematically with modifying affixes with respect to syntactic function, semantic content, and prosodic properties. That is, head affixes, which cannot be omitted, often lack inherent meaning and have relatively unmarked boundaries, which can be obscured entirely under specific phonological conditions. By contrast, modifying affixes, which can be omitted, consistently have inherent meaning and have stronger boundaries, which resist prosodic fusion in all phonological contexts. While these correlations are hardly specific to English and Swedish it remains to be investigated to which extent they hold cross-linguistically. The observation that some of the constituents identified on the basis of prosodic evidence lack inherent meaning raises the issue of compositionality. I will argue that certain systematic aspects of word meaning cannot be captured with reference to the syntagmatic level, but require reference to the paradigmatic level instead. The assumption is then that there are two dimensions of morphological analysis: syntagmatic analysis, which centers on the criteria for decomposing words in terms of labelled constituents, and paradigmatic analysis, which centers on the criteria for establishing relations among (whole) words in the mental lexicon. While meaning is intrinsically connected with paradigmatic analysis (e.g. base relations, oppositeness) it is not essential to syntagmatic analysis.
Smooth turn-taking in conversation depends in part on speakers being able to communicate their intention to hold or cede the floor. Both prosodic and gestural cues have been shown to be used in this context. We investigate the interplay of pitch movements and hand gestures at locations at which speaker change becomes relevant, comparing their use in German and Swedish. We find that there are some shared functions of prosody and gesture with regard to turn-taking in the two languages, but that these shared functions appear to be mediated by the different phonological demands on pitch in the two languages.