ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen
description
Transcript of ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen
![Page 1: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Ever / neverWhy are certain borrowings so successful?
Eric Hoekstra, Bouke Slofstra & Arjen Versloot
ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen
![Page 2: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Road map
• Trace the changes in the use of the quantifiers meaning ‘ever’ and ‘never’ in the history of Frisian.
• Attempt to answer the question why certain changes occurred.
![Page 3: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
History of Frisian
• Old Frisian 1200 – 1550
• Middle Frisian 1550 – 1800
• Modern Frisian 1800 – 2000
=> Overview spanning 700 years.
![Page 4: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Language Corpus Frisian / size
• Around 1 million of words of Old Frisian
• Around 1 million of words of Middle Frisian
• Around 25 million of words of Modern Frisian (mainly 20th century, 1 million 19th century)
![Page 5: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Corpus Frisian / other info
• Middle Frisian subcorpus: exhaustive, tagged, lemmatised.
• Old Frisian subcorpus will be exhaustive, tagged, lemmatised.
• Corpus available now on the intranet.
• Corpus on-line in 2010 through internet.
• Presentation during Euralex conference 2010, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
![Page 6: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Syntactic environments
• Rhetorical questions
• In the scope of a negative DP such as nobody
• In the scope of an excluding head such as if, before, deny, alas that.
• Relative clauses (free relative clauses)
• Clauses with a clausal negation
• Main (non-negative) clauses
![Page 7: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Rhetorical question
Wa zoe dat ooit fin LYSKE zizzewho would that ever of Lyske say(1748)
![Page 8: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Negative DP (XP) as preceding clausemate
Joa zille nin fortriet Oyt syæn, (1755) they will no sadness ever see
![Page 9: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Clause in the scope of an excluding head
• Dat mij ien koegel reitse (1748)that me a bullet may-hiteiar ik ien slaaf ooit hiet before I a slave ever was-called
• Excluding heads: noch ‘nor’, ear / foardat ‘before’, as’’if’, as ‘than’, foei ‘shame’, bûten ‘outside, apart from’, etc.
![Page 10: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
(Free) relative clause
• Free relativeJoa trogzieke wis (1755) they search surely het hier ooyt trog toa sieken iswhat here ever through to search is
• Relative with nominal antecedentOm to rjuechtjen 't wird dat hy æ joe (1666)For [thus] to do the word which he ever gave‘So as to do whichever command he gave’
![Page 11: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Clauses with a clausal negation
• In dy zil oyt næt eyne, (1755)and that shall ever not end ‘and that shall never end’
![Page 12: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Main (non-negative) clauses
• wand God bad a nethe because God offered ever mercy‘because God always offered mercy’(Hunsingo R. 30 [16], 1330)
![Page 13: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Old Frisian (1300-1550)
• A ‘ever’ and NA ‘never’.
• A word meaning ‘always’ absent until late Old Frisian and then infrequent.
• Body of surviving texts is mainly legal.
• Texts have been transmitted orally before being written down in the 13-14th century.
![Page 14: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Syntactic contexts ‘A’ - OF
Rhetorical questions 0
Neg DP (XP) 0
Excluding head 10 ‘ever’
(Free) relative clauses 16 ‘ever’
Clause negation: 3>never
Main non-negative clause 19‘always’
![Page 15: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Syntactic contexts ‘EA’ – 17th c.
Rhetorical questions 6
Neg DP 5
Excluding head 10
(Free) relative clause 14
Clause negation: ea net 0
Main (non-negative) clause 1 ‘always’
![Page 16: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Changes OF – 17th c. Frisian
• Rhetorical Qs 0:48 => 6:30 0.48• Neg DPs 0:48 => 5:31 1.22• Excluding head 10:38 => 10:26 -• Rel clauses 16:32 => 14:22 -• Clause negation 3:45 => 0:35 -• Main nonneg cl 19:29 => 1:34 0.006
(Fisher Exact, http://www.langsrud.com/fisher.htm)
![Page 17: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Discussion OF – 17th c.
a) Presence of rhetorical questions in OF texts
b) Could negative DPs trigger ‘a’?sa se nenne wigand a tein netwhen she no son ever born NEG-has‘when she didn’t bear any son ever’
c) The decrease of EA ‘always’ (main non-negative clauses)
![Page 18: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
EA after 1700
• 18th c. EA is not attested!
• 19th c. Numerous attestations after 1830
• 20th c. Numerous attestions
• EA was dead for some 130 odd years between 1700 and 1830. How come?
![Page 19: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Resurrection
• EA was resurrected by the Frisian Language Movement.
• As a result EA is now used in formal writing and speech.
• What happened around 1700?
• => The word OAIT ‘ever’ was borrowed from Dutch around that date.
![Page 20: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
OAIT 18th c.
Rhetorical questions 26
Negative DP 35
Excluding head 31
(Free) relative clause 11
Clause neg oait net 27
Main non-neg clause 0
![Page 21: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Changes EA 17th c. – OAIT 18th c.
• Rhetorical qs 6:30 26:104 -
• Negative DP 5:31 35:95 -
• Excluding head 10:26 31:99 -
• (Free) relatives 14:22 11:119 0.00
• Clause negation 0:36 27:103 0.14
• Main non-neg cl 1:35 0:130 -
![Page 22: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
EA: relatives versus free relatives
• Only 3 relatives are free relatives.
• The other 11 relatives have a nominal antecedent.
• The nominal antecedent is 9x introduced by the definite article, 2x by ‘all’.
• The relative clause is introduced by a D-relative 12x (1x zero).
![Page 23: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
OAIT: relatives versus free relatives
• No relative has a nominal antecedent, except one has a pronominal antecedent.
• All clauses except one are introduced by a WH-item, hence free relatives.
• (Incidentally: WH-item 5x preceded by ‘all’.)
![Page 24: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Relatives: free versus nominal
EA 17th OAIT 18th p-valueFree:nom rel Free:nom rel3:11 10:1 0.09
Rel. pron WH:DRel. pron WH:D2:12 10:1 0.02
=> Increase in free relatives, decrease in relatives with a nominal antecedent.
=> Decrease in D-pronouns, increase of WH-pronouns. Having a nominal antecedent correlates strongly with having a D-relative pronoun.
![Page 25: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Clause neg: oait net - *ea net
• In dy zil oyt næt eyneand that shall ever not end
• Oait net = noait = never.
• At least 4 writers.
• 27 occurrences
• Never with EA in 17th c.
![Page 26: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
What about the oait net construction?
• Hypercorrection of double negation?
• Is there evidence for hypercorrection in prescriptive grammars?
• Or is it a maximizer-emphasizer like in:I wouldn’t do it in a hundred years / ever
![Page 27: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Overview Frisian EVER 1200-2000
• Decrease of use in main clauses (universal interpretation).
• Increase of co-occurrence with DPs as triggers.• Increase and decrease in relative clauses with
nominal antecedent.• Increase and decrease of use with clause
negation
![Page 28: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Why the switch from EA to OAIT
• Why was (N)OAIT so easily borrowed?
• Why did it win out against (N)EA?
• Is it mere frequency? But lots of Dutch words, equally frequent, were not borrowed!
• Did EA lack distinctness? (Hopper & Traugott 2003)
![Page 29: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Talking about easy to learn …
• The expressions NOOIT NEVER (4360) and OOIT EVER (418) are currently entering the Dutch language.
• Ok, so they are easy to learn.
• What makes them special compared to other words which are easy to learn?
• Frisian :: Dutch = Dutch :: English
![Page 30: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Are quantifier systems especially susceptible?
• The whole Frisian quantifier system is affected at an early date!
• JIT => NOCH
• ELTS => ELK
• ELKENIEN => IDERIEN
• (N)EARNE => (N)ERGENS
• (N)EA => (N)OAIT
![Page 31: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Preliminary conclusions EA => OAIT
• Learnability (easy to learn)
• Sociological conditions
• Distinctness: OAIT was more optimal than EA.
• What determines speaker/hearer (production/perception) optimality?
![Page 32: ICHL 19 – 2009 Radboud University Nijmegen](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062304/568145a4550346895db2980a/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Thank you