Advertisement

Russian Linguistics

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 91–119 | Cite as

Morphosyntactic variation and syntactic constructions in Czech nominal declension: corpus frequency and native-speaker judgments

  • Neil Bermel
  • Luděk Knittl
Article

Abstract

Data from the Czech National Corpus and a large-scale survey of acceptability judgments are used to investigate the scope of morphosyntactic variation in two cases (genitive singular and locative singular) of a Czech declension pattern. The syntactic construction in which a form is found is shown to have a significant interaction with its frequency in the corpus and with its acceptability rating. We conclude that the pattern of acceptability preferences lends support to the entrenchment hypothesis and in general to emergentist approaches to language.

Keywords

Corpus Data Syntactic Construction Acceptability Judgment Genitive Case Representative Corpus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Морфосинтакcическая вариативность и синтаксические конструкции в склонении чешских существительных: частотность в корпусе и oценки носителей языка

Аннотация

В настоящей статье рассматриваются отношения между данными из Национального Корпуса чешского языка и широким опросом оценки языковой приемлемости. Целью работы является рассмотрение масштабов морфосинтаксической вариативности в двух чешских падежах (в родительном и локативном падежах единственного числа). Согласно результатам нашего анализа, синтаксическая конструкция, в которой имеется данная форма, состоит в тесном взаимодействии с ее частотностью в корпусе и с оценкой ее приемлемости. Таким образом, общая модель оценок приемлемости подтверждает гипотезу об «усилении» употребляемости более частых форм и в целом сходится с так называемыми «эмергентными» подходами к языку, т.е. с такими подходами, согласно которым созидание языковых структур происходит в ходе освоения языка.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Source

  1. Czech National Corpus [Český národní korpus, including SYN2000 and SYN2005], http://www.korpus.cz.

References

  1. Bader, M., & Häussler, J. (2009). Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 273–330. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bermel, N. (1993). Sémantické rozdíly v tvarech českého lokálu. Naše řeč, 76, 192–198. Google Scholar
  3. Bermel, N. (2004). V korpuse nebo v korpusu? Co nám řekne (a neřekne) ČNK o morfologické variaci v tvarech lokálu. In Z. Hladká & P. Karlík (Eds.), Čeština—univerzália a specifika, 5. Sborník 5. mezinárodního setkání bohemistů v Brně 13.–15.11.2003 (pp. 163–171). Praha. Google Scholar
  4. Bermel, N. (2010). Variace a frekvence variant na příkladu tvrdých neživotných maskulin. In S. Čmejrková, J. Hoffmannová, & E. Havlová (Eds.), Užívání a prožívání jazyka. K. 90. narozeninám Františka Daneše (pp. 135–140). Praha. Google Scholar
  5. Bermel, N., & Knittl, L. (forthcoming). Corpus frequency and acceptability judgments: a study of morphosyntactic variants in Czech. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Google Scholar
  6. Brooks, P. J., & Tomasello, M. (1999). How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language, 75(4), 720–738. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, D. (2007). Peripheral functions and overdifferentiation: the Russian second locative. Russian Linguistics, 31(1), 61–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Čermák, F. et al. (1997). Recepce současné češtiny a reprezentativnost korpusu (Výsledky a některé souvislosti jedné orientační sondy na pozadí budování Českého národního korpusu). Slovo a slovesnost, 58(2), 117–124. Google Scholar
  9. Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax. Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks. Google Scholar
  10. Cummins, G. (1995). Locative in Czech: -u or -ě? Choosing locative singular endings in Czech nouns. Slavic and East European Journal, 39(2), 241–260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cvrček, V. et al. (2010). Mluvnice současné češtiny. Praha. Google Scholar
  12. Divjak, D. (2008). On (in)frequency and (un)acceptability. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Corpus linguistics, computer tools, and applications—state of the art. PALC 2007 (Lodz Studies in Language, 17) (pp. 213–233). Frankfurt. Google Scholar
  13. Featherston, S. (2005). The decathlon model of empirical syntax. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence. Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives (Studies in Generative Grammar, 85) (pp. 187–208). Berlin. Google Scholar
  14. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London. Google Scholar
  15. Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–224. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldberg, A. E. (2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karlík, P., Nekula, M., & Rusínová, Z. (Eds.) (1995). Příruční mluvnice češtiny. Praha. Google Scholar
  18. Kasal, J. (1992). Dublety a jejich využití. Philologica, 65 (Studia Bohemica, 6) (pp. 107–114). Google Scholar
  19. Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2005). The relationship between grammaticality ratings and corpus frequencies: a case study into word order variability in the midfield of German clauses. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence. Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives (Studies in Generative Grammar, 85) (pp. 329–349). Berlin. Google Scholar
  20. Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2008). Comparing linguistic judgments and corpus frequencies as windows on grammatical competence: a study of argument linearization in German clauses. In A. Steube (Ed.), The discourse potential of underspecified structures (Language, Context, and Cognition, 8) (pp. 179–192). Berlin. Google Scholar
  21. Klimeš, L. (1953). Lokál singuláru a plurálu vzoru ‘hrad’ a ‘město’. Naše řeč, 36, 212–219. Google Scholar
  22. Králík, J., & Šulc, M. (2005). The representativeness of Czech corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(3), 357–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford. Google Scholar
  24. Marcus, G. F. et al. (1995). German inflection: the exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 189–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McKoon, G., & Macfarland, T. (2000). Externally and internally caused change of state verbs. Language, 76(4), 833–858. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Petr, J. (Ed.) (1986). Mluvnice češtiny. Volume 2: Tvarosloví. Praha. Google Scholar
  27. Rusínová, Z. (1992). Některé aspekty distribuce alomorfů (genitiv a lokál sg. maskulin). Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity, A, 40, 23–31. Google Scholar
  28. Schütze, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics. Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago. Google Scholar
  29. Sedláček, M. (1982). V ‘Záhřebě’ i v ‘Záhřebu’. Naše řeč, 65, 11–15. Google Scholar
  30. Štícha, F. (2009). Lokál singuláru tvrdých neživotných maskulin (ve vlaku vs. v potoce): úzus a gramatičnost. Slovo a slovesnost, 70(3), 193–220. Google Scholar
  31. Šulc, M. (2001). Životná koncovka -a v akuzativu singuláru neživotných maskulin. Jazykovědné aktuality, 38(3), 117–128. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Russian and Slavonic Studies, School of Modern Languages and LinguisticsUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations