Publications

Abstract

In present-day spoken German, subordinate clauses introduced by the connector weil ‘because’ occur with two orders of subject, finite verb, and object(s). In addition to weil clauses with verb-final word order (“VF”; standard in subordinate clauses) one often hears weil clauses with SVO, the standard order of main clauses (“verb-second”, V2). The “weil-V2” phenomenon is restricted to sentences where the weil clause follows the main clause, and is virtually absent from formal (written, edited) German, occurring only in extemporaneous speech. Extant accounts of weil-V2 focus on the interpretation of weil-V2 clauses by the hearer, in particular on the type of discourse relation licensed by weil-V2 vs. weil-VF: causal/propositional or inferential/epistemic. Focusing instead on the production of weil clauses by the speaker, we examine a collection of about 1,000 sentences featuring a causal connector (weil, da or denn) after the main clause, all extracted from a corpus of spoken German dialogues and annotated with tags denoting major prosodic and syntactic boundaries, and various types of disfluencies (pauses, hesitations). Based on the observed frequency patterns and on known linguistic properties of the connectors, we propose that weil-V2 is caused by miscoordination between the mechanisms for lexical retrieval and grammatical encoding: Due to its high frequency, the lexical item weil is often selected prematurely, while the grammatical encoder is still working on the syntactic shape of the weil clause. Weil-V2 arises when pragmatic and processing factors drive the encoder to discontinue the current sentence, and to plan the clause following weil in the form of the main clause of an independent, new sentence. Thus, the speaker continues with a V2 clause, seemingly in violation of the VF constraint imposed by the preceding weil. We also explore implications of the model regarding the interpretation of sentences containing causal connectors.

Abstract

Comments on a study by Frazier and others on Dutch-language lexical processing. Claims that the control condition in the experiment was inadequate and that an assumption made by Frazier about closed class verbal items is inaccurate, and proposes an alternative account of a subset of the data from the experiment

Abstract

Raises objections to L. Frazier et al's (see record 1994-32229-001) report of an experimental study intended to test Schreuder's (1990) Morphological Integration (MI) model concerning the processing of separable and inseparable verbs and shows that the logic of the experiment is flawed. The problem is rooted in the notion of a separable complex verb. The conclusion is drawn that Frazier et al's experimental data cannot be taken as evidence for the theoretical propositions they develop about the MI model.

Abstract

Van den Broeck (1977, 1980) heeft een pragmatische interpretatie voorgesteld voor de verschillende wijzen waarop leden van hogere en lagere sociaal-economische klassen hun taaluitingen syntaktisch struktureren. Ter ondersteuning hiervan presenteerde hij gegevens m.b.t. gemiddelde zinscomplexiteit bij sprekers uit twee sociaal- conomische klassen in formele en informele gesprekssituaties. Het in dit artikel gerapporteerde onderzoek slaagt er niet in van den Broeck's uitkomsten te repliceren. Waarschijnlijk berusten ze op een contaminatie van gesprekssituatie met taalkeuze (standaardtaal vs. lokaal dialekt). Mede op basis van de nieuwe gegevens wordt i.p.v. de pragmatische interpretatie een vaardigheidsinterpretatie voorgesteld. T.g.v. vooropleiding en beroep beschikken leden van verschillende sociaal- economische klassen over uiteenlopende vaardigheidsniveaus in verhalend (narrative) en verklarend (expository) taalgebruik. Dit uit zich in het gebruik van connectieven: funktiewoorden die logischsemantische relaties tussen proposities uitdrukken.