Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (76) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (59)
- Other (6)
- Doctoral Thesis (5)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (2)
- Postprint (2)
- Review (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (76)
Keywords
- German (7)
- eye-tracking (4)
- word order (4)
- Aphasia (3)
- Bayesian data analysis (3)
- Cue-based retrieval (3)
- Working memory (3)
- Bayesian hierarchical modeling (2)
- ERP (2)
- Focus (2)
Institute
- Department Linguistik (76) (remove)
We report two corpus analyses to examine the impact of animacy, definiteness, givenness and type of referring expression on the ordering of double objects in the spontaneous speech of German-speaking two- to four-year-old children and the child-directed speech of their mothers. The first corpus analysis revealed that definiteness, givenness and type of referring expression influenced word order variation in child language and child-directed speech when the type of referring expression distinguished between pronouns and lexical noun phrases. These results correspond to previous child language studies in English (e.g., de Marneffe et al. 2012). Extending the scope of previous studies, our second corpus analysis examined the role of different pronoun types on word order. It revealed that word order in child language and child-directed speech was predictable from the types of pronouns used. Different types of pronouns were associated with different sentence positions but also showed a strong correlation to givenness and definiteness. Yet, the distinction between pronoun types diminished the effects of givenness so that givenness had an independent impact on word order only in child-directed speech but not in child language. Our results support a multi-factorial approach to word order in German. Moreover, they underline the strong impact of the type of referring expression on word order and suggest that it plays a crucial role in the acquisition of the factors influencing word order variation.
Previous studies have found that Hebrew-speaking children accurately comprehend object relatives (OR) with an embedded non-referential arbitrary subject pronoun (ASP). The facilitation of ORs with embedded pronouns is expected both from a discourse-pragmatics perspective and within a syntax-based locality approach. However, the specific effect of ASP might also be driven by a mismatch in grammatical features between the head noun and the pronoun, or by its relatively undemanding referential properties. We tested these possibilities by comparing ORs whose embedded subject is either ASP, a referential pronoun, or a lexical noun phrase. In all conditions, grammatical features were controlled. In a referent-identification task, the matching features made ORs with embedded pronouns difficult for five-year-olds. Accuracy was particularly low when the embedded pronoun was referential. These results indicate that embedded pronouns do not facilitate ORs across the board, and that the referential properties of pronouns affect OR processing.
Encountering a cataphoric pronoun triggers a search for a suitable referent. Previous research indicates that this search is constrained by binding Condition C, which prohibits coreference between a cataphoric pronoun and a referential expression within its c-command domain. We report the results from a series of eye-movement monitoring and questionnaire experiments investigating cataphoric pronoun resolution in German. Given earlier findings suggesting that the application of structure-sensitive constraints on reference resolution may be delayed in non-native language processing, we tested both native and proficient non-native speakers of German. Our results show that cataphoric pronouns trigger an active search in both native and non-native comprehenders. Whilst both participant groups demonstrated awareness of Condition C in an offline task, we found Condition C effects to be restricted to later processing measures during online reading. This indicates that during natural reading, Condition C applies as a relatively late filter on potential coreference assignments.
In previous research, mutual information (MI) was employed to quantify the physical information shared between consecutive phonological segments, based on electromagnetic articulography data. In this study, MI is extended to quantifying coarticulatory resistance (CR) versus overlap in German using ultrasound imaging. Two measurements are tested as input to MI: (1) the highest point on the tongue body and (2) the first coefficient of the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) of the whole tongue contour. Both measures are used to examine changes in coarticulation between two time points during the syllable span: the consonant midpoint and the vowel onset. Results corroborate previous findings reporting differences in coarticulatory overlap in German and across languages. Further, results suggest that MI used with the highest point on the tongue body captures distinctions related both to place and manner of articulation, while the first DFT coefficient does not provide any additional information regarding global (whole tongue) as opposed to local (individual articulator) aspects of CR. However, both methods capture temporal distinctions in coarticulatory resistance between the two time points. Results are discussed with respect to the potential of MI measure to provide a way of unifying coarticulation quantification methods across data collection techniques.
Language and Arithmetic
(2018)
We examined cross-domain semantic priming effects between arithmetic and language. We paired subtractions with their linguistic equivalent, exception phrases (EPs) with positive quantifiers (e.g., "everybody except John") while pairing additions with their own linguistic equivalent, EPs with negative quantifiers (e.g., "nobody except John"; Moltmann, 1995). We hypothesized that EPs with positive quantifiers prime subtractions and inhibit additions while EPs with negative quantifiers prime additions and inhibit subtractions. Furthermore, we expected similar priming and inhibition effects from arithmetic into semantics. Our design allowed for a bidirectional analysis by using one trial's target as the prime for the next trial. Two experiments failed to show significant priming effects in either direction. Implications and possible shortcomings are explored in the general discussion.
Variations within a subtype
(2018)
Surface dyslexia is characterised by poor reading of irregular words while nonword reading can be completely normal. Previous work has identified several theoretical possibilities for the underlying locus of impairment in surface dyslexia. In this study, we systematically investigated whether children with surface dyslexia showed different patterns of reading performance that could be traced back to different underlying levels of impairment. To do this, we tested 12 English readers, replicating previous work in Hebrew (Gvion & Friedmann, 2013; 2016; Friedmann & Lukov, 2008; Friedmann & Gvion, 2016). In our sample, we found that poor irregular word reading was associated with deficits at the level of the orthographic input lexicon and with impaired access to meaning and spoken word forms after processing written words in the orthographic input lexicon. There were also children whose surface dyslexia seemed to be caused by impairments of the phonological output lexicon. We suggest that further evidence is required to unequivocally support a fourth pattern where the link between orthography and meaning is intact while the link between orthography and spoken word forms is not functioning. All patterns found were consistent with dual route theory while possible patterns of results, which would be inconsistent with dual route theory, were not detected. Crown Copyright (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The book by Božena Bednaříková, Slovo a jeho konverze (‘BSJK’), was originally published in 2009. However, in our view, there has not yet been given a due consideration and certainly not recognition as a genuine new territory of word formation. This is the reason to write a short review in order to give this book the consideration it has by large and far deserved. For in this book, two theoretically interesting working hypotheses are represented and covered by numerous examples of the Czech contemporary language: (i) conversion is the central process (not derivation), and (ii) conversion belongs to morphology and not (just) to word formation.
The book is divided into 9 sections. The section 1 (p. 13–14) gives the road map of the book, in section 2 (p. 15–42), the central concern about the position of word as a central unit of morphology (form formation) is established. In this chapter, the traditional views of Czech descriptive and Academic grammars but also manuals and handbooks or teacher’s books for high schools are reviewed. In most of them, word formation is considered being a part of lexicology, and not an integral part of morphology or better form formation. The review serves not only the improvement towards a unifying grammatical terminology in academic circles (university and academy of science) but it should also improve the quality of teaching at elementary and high schools (cf. 2.6., p. 31–42: Školský exkurz). Bednaříková is famous for her leading role as missing link between the Academia and the consumers of grammars. In chapter 3, entitled Návrat slova ‘The return of the word’ (into the Morphology, p. 43–54), arguments in favor of a morphological approach are raised. In this important methodological chapter, the main reasons are given why the word must be a central part of the form formation (morphology/grammar) and not of the lexicology. In addition, key terms such as stem, root and affix are subject to revision. The chapter is very brief, but very precise in its reasoning and arguments, in which the formal teaching is assigned a central supporting role in the context of conversion and transposition. In chapter 4 Slovo jako slovní druh (‘The word as a pars orationis’, p. 55–70), the syntactic function of transposition of one pars orationis to another with the means of conversion is considered. In Chapter 5, the central role of morphology for word formation is analyzed taking as starting point Mel’čuks theory which is understood as the analysis of morphological processes (cf. Mel’čuk, I. 2000. Morphological processes. In G. Booji, Ch. Lehmann, J. Mugdan, & S. Skopeteas (eds.), Morphologie/Morphology. Vol. 1, 523–535. Berlin & New York). The innovative part of the book are without any doubt the chapters 6–9, in which the internal structure of the word is introduced (chapter 6, 79–122), furthermore the part of speech transfer (or PS Transfer) including the conversion (Chapter 7, 123–149), once more the transposition understood as the shift from one part of speech to the other and concentrating on nouns, verbs and adjectives (Chapter 8, 150–201), and, finally, transflexion, “transflexe” (chapter 9, 203–219), which belongs rather to the domain of derivation than to a new type of word formation, and which does not include the transposition from one part of speech to another but rather the transition from one declension class to another. However, it is to be criticized that in some chapters, certain systematics are missing (this is expressed for example in the repetition of the same phenomenon in several places), and the illustrations in the form of derivation trees or the abbreviations are not always transparent and explicitly defined. It took a very long time until I received information about the abbreviation “S”.
I would now like to give a short statement concerning the innovative potential and the contribution of the book itself as compared to the western standard on the same topic. At the beginning of the monograph, the author raises the central concerns of her two hypotheses. In her study, she is concerned with the bases of morphemic analysis of word formation and with the function of the syntagma. In view of methodology, two central acts of actualization are, following Mathesius’ terminology, under review: first, the category called “pojmenovávací”, and second, the category called “usouvztažňovací” (cf. also Mathesius, V. 1982. Jazyk, kultura a slovesnost; Daneš, F. 1991.Mathesiova koncepce funkční gramatiky v kontextu dnešní jazykovědy. In SaS 52. 161–174 and Panevová, J. 2010. Kategorie pojmenovávací a usouvztažňovací [Jak František Daneš rozvíjí Viléma Mathesia]. In S. Čmejrková & J. Hoffmannová ad. [eds.], Užívání a prožívání jazyka, 21–26.). Her major concern is thus to establish a missing link between an analysis of word formation and form formation (morphology). Her morphemic analysis of word formation processes wants to “combat traditional school views of word formation as a (mechanical) connection of the root, prefix, and suffix”. Doing so, she analyzes in the book the relationship between transfer, transposition (as change of partes orationis) and conversion (as the operation process serving transposition). In the last chapter 8, BSJK re-introduces and refines the term transflection (BSJK 2009,13).
This book is important for its consistent satisfactory treatment of the term conversion as a morphological process in the Czech tradition; still we cannot confirm that in European context, this topic would be “seriously under-researched” (cited from the introduction, Chapter 1, p. 13). The contrary is true, in context of English word formation besides the most influential work by Marchand (Marchand, H. 1996. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic diachronic approach. 2nd ed. München), conversion as the most productive process of word formation has become perhaps the most researched object recently: to mention just a few influential monographs: Martsa, S. 2013. Conversion in English: A Cognitive Semantic Approach. Cambridge; Vogel, P. M. 1996. Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel. Berlin & New York.
The word formation called conversion originally comes from analytic languages such as English and French. Especially English is a language in which the derivation of a noun from a verb and vice versa causes a considerable large amount of homonymous forms in the dictionary and of course, this is not just a problem of morphology but especially a problem of any theoretical approach to language acquisition, cognitive semantics or even generative morphosyntax. Thus, in his seminal book, Language Instinct (1995), Steven Pinker argues persuasively that prescriptive grammar rules disallowing, among other things, the sentence-final use of prepositions, the splitting of infinitives and the conversion of nouns to verbs are both useless and nonsensical (371–379). As regards the conversion of nouns to verbs, he says: “[i]n fact the easy conversion of nouns to verbs has been part of English grammar for centuries; it is one of the processes that make English English” (ibidem: 379). To illustrate the easiness characterizing this type of conversion, he lists verbs converted from nouns designating human body parts, some of which are reproduced in (1):
(1) head a committee, scalp a missionary, eye a babe, nose around the office, mouth the lyrics, tongue each note on the flute, neck in the back seat, back the candidate, arm the militia, shoulder the burden, elbow your way in, finger the culprit, knuckle under, thumb a ride, belly up to the bar, stomach someone’s complaints, knee the goalie, leg it across the town, foot the bill, toe the line (cf. Pinker, S. 1995. The Language Instinct. New York, 379–380 and Pinker, S. 1996. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge MA)
Pinker estimates that approximately a fifth of English verbs originate from nouns, which, as documented extensively in Clark & Clark (Clark, E. V. & H. H. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. In Language 55. 767–811), may also have to do with the fact that new or innovative verbs in English arise predominantly from conversion of nouns to verbs.
Without questioning the dominance of noun to verb conversion, I shall claim in this review that it is not only the easy conversion of verbs from nouns, but, more broadly, conversion as a word-formation process that makes English English. Consider, for instance, (2) below demonstrating that the easiness of forming conversion verbs equally characterizes, though in a lesser degree, the conversion of nouns from verbs. The expressions given in (2) are modelled on Pinker’s above examples by the seminal work of Sándor Martsa (2013. Conversion in English: A Cognitive Semantic Approach. Cambridge), and they contain nouns converted from verbs designating actions functionally related to different parts of the human body.
(2) have your say, give a shout, let out a shriek / a cry, give a talk, take a look at the notes, keep a close watch, down the whisky with a swallow, have a chew on it, have a smell of this cheese, with a smile, the touch of her fingers, Hey! Nice catch! go for a run, it’s worth a go, go for a walk
Thus, the major difference between the term konverze as introduced and defended in BSJK (2009, 149) on one hand, and the English type of conversion mostly called “Zero-Derivation” by a zero morpheme (as Marchand 1969 op. cit., has called it) is to be found inside of the two quite different systems of word formation.
Czech very rarely allows for pure zero derivation such as demonstrated in the English examples (1)-(2).
Despite this major difference, even Czech language being still a highly inflectional language with rich case, number and declension system and agreement, nevertheless more and more allows for similar word formations typical for English with a true zero affixation, e. g. tunnel > to tunnel : Cz tunel > tunelovat and this process is an integral part of the grammar because it includes even the category of verbal aspect deriving also the perfective forms and negated verbs such as nevytunelovalo peníze,
ve snaze “politicky korektně” uctít Havlovu památku jednotliví ministři české vlády přislíbili, že přestanou tento stát vykrádat a tunelovat, tedy alespoň do začátku příštího roku; Nové vedení Obce spisovatelů a jeho sekretariát nevytunelovalo peníze Obce spisovatelů, vždyť nebylo ani co tunelovat, naopak zachránilo tuto organizaci před téměř nezvratným koncem (ČNK. Last accessed July 10, 2018).
Thus conversion is becoming more and more an important process of word and form formation in the system of Czech word formation and morphology.
One critical observation remains to be mentioned: The book is solid but in a certain sense restricted to just functional approaches not considering or even including the important contribution of alternative approaches in formal linguistics. Thus, mainstream generative syntax, based on the theory of government and binding or minimalism (introduced by Noam Chomsky in 1981 and 1995), are not reviewed in this book even though there are many allusions including the important role of syntax for word formation (this is an important demand on any theory of word formation, cf. also Dokulil, M. 1962. K vzájemnému poměru slovotvorby a skladby. In Acta Universitatis Carolinae: SLAVICA PRAGENSIA IV, 369–375. UK, Praha).
Most of the recent work devoted to a theoretical approach of minimalism considers conversion as a “syntactic decomposition” based on root semantics (cf. e. g. Borer, H. 2005. In name only: Structuring sense Vol. I. & The normal course of events: Structuring sense Vol. II. Oxford; Harley, H. & R. Noyer. 1999. State-of-the article: Distributed Morphology. In GLOT 4. 3–9; Halle, M. & A. Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Keyser, S. J. & K. Hale (eds.), The view from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge.). A recent development in minimalism is the concept of roots and categorial features (cf. Panagiotidis, Ph. 2014. Categorial Features. A Generative Theory of Word Class Categories. Cambridge.). This theory differentiates between so-called true “denominal verbs tape-type verbs” as opposed to those verbs which are “directly derived from a root hammer-type”. The structural differences between them are argued by Panagiotidis (2014: 63) “to account for the idiosyncratic meaning of the latter, as opposed to the predictable and systematic meaning of the former”. The two types are demonstrated under (3) vs. (4)
(3) nP vP
/ \ / \
N HAMMER v xP
/ \
HAMMER x
(Panagiotidis op. cit., 2014: 63)
In (3) to the left, the nominalizer head n takes a root complement, nominalizing it syntactically. In the tree to the right, the root h a m m e r is a manner adjunct to an xP (schematically rendered) inside the vP. On the other hand, verbs like tape behave differently. They seem to be truly denominal, formed by converting a noun into a verb, by recategorizing the noun and not by categorizing a root. By hypothesis, the verbalizing head takes as its complement a structure that already contains a noun – that is, an nP in which the root tape has already been nominalized:
(4) nP vP
/ \ / \
N TAPE v xP
/ \
np. X
/ \
n TAPE
(Panagiotidis 2014:63)
As opposed to this approach, the present monograph uses the term “transpozice” (‘transposition’) as the change of parts of speech of different classes by the means of konverze (‘conversion’) (chapter 8, 151–201). We will just mention one typical class or type of such conversions as given under (5) and (6):
(5) kapř
/ \
Kapř í
(BSJK,156)
(6) výlov [vylovit]
/ \
vý [vy] lov [lovit]
(BSJK, 180)
In summary, I would see the great merit of the publication especially in a new view on ancient phenomena. Additionally, the work also excels in a thorough multi-level analysis of conversion, transposition and transflexion, including consideration of morphonological alternations and differences of semantic interpretation by adding or removing a specific onomasiological feature (according to the onomasiological word formation theory of Dokulil, M. 1962. Tvoření slov v češtině. Teorie odvozování slov. Praha.).
Above all, I value the book because of its consistent insistence on the role of shaping for conversion as a part of morphology (form formation). I also think that conversion will play an increasingly important role in the further development of the Czech language, both for system external reasons, as a language contact phenomenon for English, but also for system inherent reasons, triggered and flanked by the tendency towards analytism and simplification, and finally the gradual reduction of the complex inflectional system of nouns and verbs.
For the theoretical linguist, this book may not be a substitute for word-formation theories such as Marchand, op. cit. (1969) or Dokulil, op. cit. (1962, 1968); but it is a very stimulating and original study in which a more thorough reading could lead to a differentiated view than that given here, showing the differences between a true zero-derivative language such as English based on a more elaborated morpho-syntactic generative theory of root semantics by Panagiotidis (2014) in which the term conversion is very different from that presented in Bednaříkovás book (see Examples 1 and 2), and a derivational language such as Czech with additional affixes and other word-forming means more clearly.
The author is to be recommended for bridging the gap with traditional (and, in my view, not negligible) theories and newer views. The work must necessarily have place in every slavist’s and bohemist’s book shelf.
In a masked morphological priming experiment, we compared the processing of derived and inflected morphologically complex Turkish words in heritage speakers of Turkish living in Berlin and in native speakers of Turkish raised and living in Turkey. The results show significant derivational and inflectional priming effects of a similar magnitude in the heritage group and the control group. For both participant groups, semantic and orthographic control conditions indicate that these priming effects are genuinely morphological in nature, and cannot be due to semantic or orthographic similarity between prime and target. These results suggest that morphological processing in heritage speakers is based on the same fundamental processing mechanisms as in prototypical native speakers. We conclude that heritage speakers, despite the fact that they have acquired the language in a particular setting and were exposed to a relatively limited amount of input, can nevertheless develop native-like processing mechanisms for complex words.
The present study used event related potentials (ERPs) to investigate how native (L1) German-speaking second-language (L2) learners of English process sentences containing filler-gap dependencies such as Bill liked the house (women) that Bob built some ornaments for __ at his workplace. Using an experimental design which allowed us to dissociate filler integration from reanalysis effects, we found that fillers which were implausible as direct objects of the embedded verb (e.g. built the women) elicited similar brain responses (an N400) in L1 and L2 speakers when the verb was encountered. This confirms findings from behavioral and eye-movement studies indicating that both L1 and L2 speakers immediately try to integrate a filler with a potential lexical licensor. L1/L2 differences were observed when subsequent sentence material signaled that the direct-object analysis was in fact incorrect, however. We found reanalysis effects, in the shape of a P600 for sentences containing fillers that were plausible direct objects only for L2 speakers, but not for the L1 group. This supports previous findings suggesting that L2 comprehenders recover from an initially plausible first analysis less easily than L1 speakers.
Previous research with younger adults has revealed differences between native (L1) and non-native late-bilingual (L2) speakers with respect to how morphologically complex words are processed. This study examines whether these L1/L2 differences persist into old age. We tested masked-priming effects for derived and inflected word forms in older L1 and L2 speakers of German and compared them to results from younger L1 and L2 speakers on the same experiment (mean ages: 62 vs. 24). We found longer overall response times paired with better accuracy scores for older (L1 and L2) participants than for younger participants. The priming patterns, however, were not affected by chronological age. While both L1 and L2 speakers showed derivational priming, only the L1 speakers demonstrated inflectional priming. We argue that general performance in both L1 and L2 is affected by aging, but that the more profound differences between native and non-native processing persist into old age.