Sentences with plural expressions are compatible with distributive and collective interpretations. Adults generally prefer collective interpretations, whereas children do not. Dotlačil (2010) argues that the adult collective preference arises via an implicature. Adults can reason about alternative utterances with the distributive marker each, thereby ruling out distributive interpretations in favor of collective interpretations. Experiment 1 used the covered-box paradigm to investigate whether adults and children make the comparisons predicted by Dotlačil’s implicature account. Adults’ responses suggest that they made comparisons with internally generated alternatives, supporting the implicature account. Moreover, children seem to do so from around 11 years old onwards, after they have learned the distributive character of each. Experiment 2 excluded the possibility that our results in Experiment 1 were influenced by participants’ exposure to both collective and distributive pictures, making the collective interpretation more salient. Both experiments thus point towards an implicature underlying the adult collective preference.
{"title":"Collective preferences in Dutch revealed by a covered-box experiment","authors":"Anna Koster, J. Spenader, P. Hendriks","doi":"10.1075/avt.00037.kos","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00037.kos","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Sentences with plural expressions are compatible with distributive and collective interpretations. Adults\u0000 generally prefer collective interpretations, whereas children do not. Dotlačil (2010)\u0000 argues that the adult collective preference arises via an implicature. Adults can reason about alternative utterances with the\u0000 distributive marker each, thereby ruling out distributive interpretations in favor of collective interpretations.\u0000 Experiment 1 used the covered-box paradigm to investigate whether adults and children make the comparisons predicted by Dotlačil’s\u0000 implicature account. Adults’ responses suggest that they made comparisons with internally generated alternatives, supporting the\u0000 implicature account. Moreover, children seem to do so from around 11 years old onwards, after they have learned the distributive\u0000 character of each. Experiment 2 excluded the possibility that our results in Experiment 1 were influenced by\u0000 participants’ exposure to both collective and distributive pictures, making the collective interpretation more salient. Both\u0000 experiments thus point towards an implicature underlying the adult collective preference.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45223003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A major debate in psycholinguistics concerns the representation of morphological structure in the mental lexicon. We report the results of an auditory primed lexical decision experiment in which we tested whether verbs prime their nominalizations in Dutch. We find morphological priming effects with regular nominalizations (schorsen ‘suspend’ → schorsing ‘suspension’) as well as with irregular nominalizations (schieten ‘shoot’ → schot ‘shot’). On this basis, we claim that, despite the lack of phonological identity between stem and derivation in the case of irregular nominalizations, the morphological relation between the two forms, suffices to evoke a priming effect. However, an alternative explanation, according to which the semantic relation in combination with the phonological overlap accounts for the priming effect, cannot be excluded.
{"title":"Morphological processing in nominalizations","authors":"Emma van Lipzig, Ava Creemers, J. Don","doi":"10.1075/avt.00044.lip","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00044.lip","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 A major debate in psycholinguistics concerns the representation of morphological structure in the mental lexicon.\u0000 We report the results of an auditory primed lexical decision experiment in which we tested whether verbs prime their\u0000 nominalizations in Dutch. We find morphological priming effects with regular nominalizations (schorsen ‘suspend’\u0000 → schorsing ‘suspension’) as well as with irregular nominalizations (schieten ‘shoot’ →\u0000 schot ‘shot’). On this basis, we claim that, despite the lack of phonological identity between stem and\u0000 derivation in the case of irregular nominalizations, the morphological relation between the two forms, suffices to evoke a priming\u0000 effect. However, an alternative explanation, according to which the semantic relation in combination with the phonological overlap\u0000 accounts for the priming effect, cannot be excluded.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45761771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Linguistics in the Netherlands 2020","authors":"","doi":"10.1075/avt.37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.37","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47641677","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Distributive-share markers such as jeweils in German or po in Serbian allow for event-distributive readings, where events are distributed over spatio-temporal units, unlike distributive quantifiers such as each in English that only allow individual-distributive readings. Some researchers propose that German jeweils should be analyzed as a universal event-distributive quantifier. In contrast, other researchers claim distributive share markers (e.g. Serbian po) are simply event plurality markers. We investigated these claims with jeweils in two experiments. Experiment 1 tested if both individual and spatial (event) distributive readings are readily available for transitive sentences in German, and if there is an exhaustivity requirement on the restrictor argument. Experiment 2 was designed to force event-distributive readings and further disambiguate the results from Experiment 1. Our findings suggest that jeweils seems to be a true universal event quantifier, and highlight that distributive share markers can differ in fundamental features cross-linguistically.
{"title":"Event-distributivity and exhaustivity","authors":"A. Bosnić, Maximilian Velich, J. Spenader","doi":"10.1075/avt.00034.bos","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00034.bos","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Distributive-share markers such as jeweils in German or po in Serbian allow for event-distributive readings, where events are distributed over spatio-temporal units, unlike distributive quantifiers such as each in English that only allow individual-distributive readings. Some researchers propose that German jeweils should be analyzed as a universal event-distributive quantifier. In contrast, other researchers claim distributive share markers (e.g. Serbian po) are simply event plurality markers. We investigated these claims with jeweils in two experiments. Experiment 1 tested if both individual and spatial (event) distributive readings are readily available for transitive sentences in German, and if there is an exhaustivity requirement on the restrictor argument. Experiment 2 was designed to force event-distributive readings and further disambiguate the results from Experiment 1. Our findings suggest that jeweils seems to be a true universal event quantifier, and highlight that distributive share markers can differ in fundamental features cross-linguistically.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"37 1","pages":"2-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48914970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This contribution sketches a very personal and subjective view on the past 50 years of linguistics in the Netherlands as well as on the next 50 years in linguistics in the Netherlands. I will be more specific on the past 10 years and on the next 10 years.
{"title":"Past and future of linguistics in the Netherlands","authors":"J. Odijk","doi":"10.1075/avt.00020.odi","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00020.odi","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution sketches a very personal and subjective view on the past 50 years of linguistics in the Netherlands as well as on the next 50 years in linguistics in the Netherlands. I will be more specific on the past 10 years and on the next 10 years.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44187919","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"TiN days and ICL weeks","authors":"A. Foolen","doi":"10.1075/avt.00016.foo","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00016.foo","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49460051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In1965, I became a student of Dutch and general linguistics at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. At that time, an important change took place in the Netherlands as to the way in which languages are studied: not only as unique systems, but also as specimens of natural language in general. This meant that linguistic theory acquired a central position in the framing of research questions. The rise of generative grammar played an important role in this change of perspective within Dutch linguistics. In 1966, my Dutch linguistics professor Albert Sassen (1921-1999), a philologist and morphologist, introduced generative grammar into the Dutch study program in Groningen by discussing the first Dutch dissertation written in the framework of generative grammar, Kraak (1966), in his syntax course for 2 nd year students (I was one of them). A year later, professor Henk Schultink (1924-2017) of Utrecht University, who wrote a famous dissertation on the morphology of Dutch (Schultink 1962) and acted as co-supervisor of my dissertation (Booij 1977), published a long introductory article on generative grammar in De Nieuwe Taalgids, a traditional journal for students of Dutch (Schultink 1967). This illustrates how an older generation of linguists took these new developments very seriously. Thus, a new generation of linguists was raised with a strong orientation towards American and generative linguistics. Although the rise of generative grammar gave an enormous boost to grammatical research in the Netherlands, it took some time before morphological issues received proper attention, with at least one exception, Botha (1968), a dissertation written in the framework of generative grammar under supervision of Schultink, on compounding in Afrikaans and the nature of the lexicon. The first dissertation on morphology at MIT, written by Mark Aronoff in 1974, was published as Aronoff (1976). In 1975, Frans Zwarts invited Aronoff to give a lecture on generative morphology in Groningen. This event turned out to be the first Morfologiedag, a conference for Dutch linguists working on morphology. Jaap van Marle and I organized a second edition of this event at the University of Amsterdam in 1976. Since then, the Morfologiedag has been organized on an annual and sometimes bi-annual basis at various universities in the Netherlands and Belgium, and more recently it became a two-day conference, hence Morfologiedagen or Morphology Days. In addition, the TIN-dag (Linguistics in the Netherlands) became an important forum for morphological papers and discussions. The intellectual history behind Aronoff’s influential monograph is described by himself as follows:
1965年，我成为格罗宁根国立大学荷兰语和普通语言学专业的一名学生。那时，在荷兰，语言的研究方式发生了重要的变化:不仅作为独特的系统，而且作为一般自然语言的样本。这意味着语言学理论在研究问题的框架中获得了中心地位。生成语法的兴起在荷兰语言学的视角变化中发挥了重要作用。1966年，我的荷兰语言学教授阿尔伯特·萨森(Albert Sassen, 1921-1999)，一位语言学家和语态学家，在格罗宁根的荷兰语研究项目中，通过讨论在生成语法框架下撰写的第一篇荷兰论文，克拉克(Kraak, 1966)，在他为二年级学生(我是其中之一)开设的语法课程中，引入了生成语法。一年后，乌得勒支大学的Henk Schultink(1924-2017)教授在荷兰语形态学的著名论文(Schultink 1962)和我的论文(Booij 1977)的共同导师，在荷兰语学生的传统期刊《De Nieuwe Taalgids》(Schultink 1967)上发表了一篇关于生成语法的长篇介绍文章。这说明了老一辈的语言学家是如何认真对待这些新发展的。因此，新一代的语言学家以强烈的美国和生成语言学为导向。尽管生成语法的兴起极大地促进了荷兰的语法研究，但词形问题得到适当关注还是花了一段时间，至少有一个例外，那就是Botha(1968)，他是在Schultink的指导下在生成语法框架下撰写的一篇关于南非荷兰语中的复合和词汇性质的论文。马克·阿罗诺夫(Mark Aronoff)于1974年在麻省理工学院发表了第一篇关于形态学的论文，题为《阿罗诺夫(Aronoff, 1976)》。1975年，弗兰斯·兹沃茨邀请阿罗诺夫在格罗宁根做一个关于生殖形态学的讲座。这次会议是荷兰语言学家研究形态学的第一次Morfologiedag会议。Jaap van Marle和我于1976年在阿姆斯特丹大学组织了第二届活动。从那时起，Morfologiedag在荷兰和比利时的不同大学每年组织一次，有时是两年一次，最近它变成了一个为期两天的会议，因此Morfologiedagen或形态学日。此外，荷兰语语言学(TIN-dag)也成为词素论文和讨论的重要论坛。阿罗诺夫这本颇具影响力的专著背后的思想史是这样描述的:
{"title":"Fifty years of morphological theory in the Netherlands","authors":"G. Booij","doi":"10.1075/avt.00014.boo","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00014.boo","url":null,"abstract":"In1965, I became a student of Dutch and general linguistics at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. At that time, an important change took place in the Netherlands as to the way in which languages are studied: not only as unique systems, but also as specimens of natural language in general. This meant that linguistic theory acquired a central position in the framing of research questions. The rise of generative grammar played an important role in this change of perspective within Dutch linguistics. In 1966, my Dutch linguistics professor Albert Sassen (1921-1999), a philologist and morphologist, introduced generative grammar into the Dutch study program in Groningen by discussing the first Dutch dissertation written in the framework of generative grammar, Kraak (1966), in his syntax course for 2 nd year students (I was one of them). A year later, professor Henk Schultink (1924-2017) of Utrecht University, who wrote a famous dissertation on the morphology of Dutch (Schultink 1962) and acted as co-supervisor of my dissertation (Booij 1977), published a long introductory article on generative grammar in De Nieuwe Taalgids, a traditional journal for students of Dutch (Schultink 1967). This illustrates how an older generation of linguists took these new developments very seriously. Thus, a new generation of linguists was raised with a strong orientation towards American and generative linguistics. Although the rise of generative grammar gave an enormous boost to grammatical research in the Netherlands, it took some time before morphological issues received proper attention, with at least one exception, Botha (1968), a dissertation written in the framework of generative grammar under supervision of Schultink, on compounding in Afrikaans and the nature of the lexicon. The first dissertation on morphology at MIT, written by Mark Aronoff in 1974, was published as Aronoff (1976). In 1975, Frans Zwarts invited Aronoff to give a lecture on generative morphology in Groningen. This event turned out to be the first Morfologiedag, a conference for Dutch linguists working on morphology. Jaap van Marle and I organized a second edition of this event at the University of Amsterdam in 1976. Since then, the Morfologiedag has been organized on an annual and sometimes bi-annual basis at various universities in the Netherlands and Belgium, and more recently it became a two-day conference, hence Morfologiedagen or Morphology Days. In addition, the TIN-dag (Linguistics in the Netherlands) became an important forum for morphological papers and discussions. The intellectual history behind Aronoff’s influential monograph is described by himself as follows:","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43990293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Massive automatic comparison of languages in parallel corpora will greatly speed up and enhance comparative syntactic research. Automatically extracting and mining syntactic differences from parallel corpora requires a pre-processing step that filters out sentence pairs that cannot be compared syntactically, for example because they involve “free” translations. In this paper we explore four possible filters: the Damerau-Levenshtein distance between POS-tags, the sentence-length ratio, the graph-edit distance between dependency parses, and a combination of the three in a logistic regression model. Results suggest that the dependency-parse filter is the most stable throughout language pairs, while the combination filter achieves the best results.
{"title":"A filter for syntactically incomparable parallel\u0000 sentences","authors":"Martin Kroon, S. Barbiers, J. Odijk, S. V. D. Pas","doi":"10.1075/avt.00029.kro","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00029.kro","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Massive automatic comparison of languages in parallel corpora\u0000 will greatly speed up and enhance comparative syntactic research. Automatically\u0000 extracting and mining syntactic differences from parallel corpora requires a\u0000 pre-processing step that filters out sentence pairs that cannot be compared\u0000 syntactically, for example because they involve “free” translations. In this\u0000 paper we explore four possible filters: the Damerau-Levenshtein distance between\u0000 POS-tags, the sentence-length ratio, the graph-edit distance between dependency\u0000 parses, and a combination of the three in a logistic regression model. Results\u0000 suggest that the dependency-parse filter is the most stable throughout language\u0000 pairs, while the combination filter achieves the best results.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44982660","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Foreword","authors":"Secretary General","doi":"10.1075/avt.00033.for","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00033.for","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47519117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We investigate the use of the perfect in dialogue in Dutch and – for comparison – report on data from Dutch narrative discourse as well as on data from both registers in English. Our approach is corpus-based with data drawn from Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone and its translation to Dutch. Our data reveal that the Dutch perfect is sensitive to the dialogue/narrative discourse distinction and competes with the past in dialogue along the event/state distinction. This is in line with earlier findings by Boogaart (1999) and de Swart (2007) and lays the foundation for an analysis of the perfect in which we bridge the gap between the English/dialogue oriented literature (Portner 2003; Nishiyama & Koenig 2010) and the variationist/narrative discourse oriented literature (de Swart 2007; Schaden 2009).
{"title":"The Perfect in dialogue","authors":"Bert Le Bruyn, M. V. D. Klis, H. Swart","doi":"10.1075/avt.00030.bru","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00030.bru","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 We investigate the use of the perfect in dialogue in Dutch and – for comparison – report on data from\u0000 Dutch narrative discourse as well as on data from both registers in English. Our approach is corpus-based with data drawn from\u0000 Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone and its translation to Dutch. Our data reveal that the Dutch\u0000 perfect is sensitive to the dialogue/narrative discourse distinction and competes with the past in dialogue\u0000 along the event/state distinction. This is in line with earlier findings by Boogaart\u0000 (1999) and de Swart (2007) and lays the foundation for an analysis of the\u0000 perfect in which we bridge the gap between the English/dialogue oriented literature (Portner 2003; Nishiyama & Koenig 2010) and the\u0000 variationist/narrative discourse oriented literature (de Swart 2007; Schaden 2009).","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46545005","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：