1 / 25

Scrambled or Sunny Side Up?

Explore the intricate patterns of scrambling in Dutch definites using Optimality Theory, distinguishing between anaphoric and nonanaphoric elements. The study reveals the impact of specific constraints on scrambling outcomes and presents data from various sources to support the findings.

iliana
Download Presentation

Scrambled or Sunny Side Up?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Scrambled or Sunny Side Up? Jack Hoeksema CLCG U of Groningen

  2. Scrambling of definites • Scrambling Je hoeft je bord niet leeg t te eten You have your plate not empty to eat “You don’t have to finish your plate’ • Or not: Je hoeft niet je bord leeg te eten

  3. OT conditions (De Hoop 2003) • NEW: Anaphoric elements scramble (Anaphoric: prior mention: old before new) • STAY: No scrambling • SC1 (= Surface Correspondence 1): Definites Scramble

  4. Anttila’s Theory of Variation • An output candidate is predicted by the grammar iff it wins in some tableau (given a partial ranking of constraints) • If a candidate wins in n tableaux and t is the total number of tableaux, then the candidate’s probability of occurrence is n/t

  5. Anaphoric Definites • 3 constraints relevant, so 6 possible orderings • when STAY dominates the rest, there is no scrambling, otherwise scrambling is optimal • in 2 out of 6 orderings, STAY is dominant • So probability of scrambling is 2/3

  6. Nonanaphoric definites • NEW is irrelevant • so only the interaction of STAY and SC1 matters • when STAY > SC1, no scrambling • when SC1 > STAY, scrambling • hence probability of scrambling for nonanaphoric definites is 1/2

  7. Bidirectional perspective: Case 1, Scrambling • Hearer perspective: both interpretations are optimal in case of Scrambling

  8. Bidirectional perspective:Case 2, Nonscrambling • Hearer perspective: in case of nonscrambling, nonanaphoric reading is optimal. Note that the ordering of the constraints is irrelevant

  9. So • De Hoop’s production OT predicts for [+anaphoric] definite noun phrases 67% scrambling, 33% nonscrambling • Bidirectional OT (using De Hoop’s constraints) would predict 100% scrambling, since nonscrambling would lead to [–anaphoric] readings

  10. Testing the theory: informally collected data

  11. Some specific combinations • Ik kan die vent niet uitstaan I can that guy not stand ‘I cannot stand that guy’ • *Ik kan niet die vent uitstaan Note: die vent is an epithet, so +def, +anaphoric

  12. Internet data • die vent niet uitstaan: 33 occurrences (Google) • niet die vent uitstaan: 0 occurrences

  13. other epithets, with de • Ik kan de man niet uitstaan I can the man not stand ‘I can’t stand the guy’ • *Ik kan niet de man uitstaan

  14. or het • Ik kan het mens niet luchten I can the woman not stand ‘I can’t stand the woman’ • *Ik kan niet het mens luchten

  15. or with other adverbs • Ik heb het mens nog gewaarschuwd I have the woman yet warned ‘I did warn the woman’ • *Ik heb nog het mens gewaarschuwd

  16. De/het N niet aankunnen ‘the N not can handle’ • Hij kon de druk niet aan. He could the pressure not on ‘He couldn’t handle the pressure’ Corpus data • Def. Object: 37 cases of Scrambling • 0 cases of Nonscrambling order

  17. [-anaphoric] • You have the right to remain silent • Het recht ‘the right’ • De tijd ‘the time’ • De moed ‘the courage’ • De energie ‘the energy’

  18. Rise of nonscrambling +def, –anaph direct objects of have/give/get (raw numbers)

  19. Rise of nonscrambling order among +def, –anaph direct objects of have/give (in %)

  20. Zo veel N “so much N” • Ik heb niet zo veel geld I have not so much money ‘I don’t have so much money’ • Ik heb zo veel geld niet

  21. Raw numbers ZO VEEL N

  22. Def. Objects versus ZO VEEL N

  23. Conclusions • Scrambling of [- ANAPHORIC] definite objects is slowly on its way out • Scrambling is highly sensitive to the difference between [+ANAPHORIC] and [-ANAPHORIC] definites • Stochastic OT is probably more suitable for describing scrambling than Anttila’s theory of variation

  24. References • Helen de Hoop, 2003, ‘Scrambling in Dutch: Optionality and Optimality’, in: Simin Karimi, ed., Word Order and Scrambling, Blackwell. • Arto Anttila & Young-mee Cho, 1998, ‘Variation and Change in Optimality Theory.’ Lingua 104:31-56.

  25. Thanks for your attention!

More Related