use of final –n for independently used quantifiers
DESCRIPTION
Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers. Eric Hoekstra. Morfologiedagen 2011, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 21-22 december 2011. 2. Two uses of quantifiers. Attributive usage Independent use. 3. Attributive use. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers
Eric Hoekstra
Morfologiedagen 2011, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 21-22 december 2011
![Page 2: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2. Two uses of quantifiers
• Attributive usage
• Independent use
![Page 3: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3. Attributive use
Beide fammen (wiene oan it dûnsjen)both women were at the dancing“Both young women were dancing.”
![Page 4: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4. Independent use
Beiden wiene oan it dûnsjenboth were at the dancing“Both were dancing.”
The same facts hold of Dutch.
![Page 5: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5. Prescriptive rules for Dutch independently used quantifiers
They are written with –n (ANS 1997:366) iff(i) they don’t have an antecedent within the text(ii) they refer to humans.Otherwise, write –e.
![Page 6: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6. Relevant factors (hypotheses)
1. Human / nonhuman reference (ANS)
2. Specific quantifier involved
3. Intratextual / extratextual antecedent (ANS) => type of construction (Den Hertog 1973, Popkema 1979)
![Page 7: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7. Type of construction
Partitive construction automatically entails an intratextual antecedent:
Sommige fan ‘e feintsjessome of the boys
![Page 8: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8. Relevance of my paper
The claims made in the literature are all based on the author’s intuitions, not on corpus based research, with the exception of Popkema (1979).
![Page 9: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9. Popkema (1979)
• Does not calculate significance.• Does not calculate phi-value (explanatory value).• Uses a smaller data set, that is, the collection of
written citations of the Dictionary of the Frisian language
• Does not investigate the mentioned factors systematically, since he tries to establish a prescriptive rule.
![Page 10: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10. Factor 1
Is there a correlation between the use of –e or –en, and the presence of a human or nonhuman antecedent?
(Significance and phi-coefficient:http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/tab2x2.html)
![Page 11: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11. Quantifier: beide(n) ‘both’
beide(n) + human - human-en 71 14-e 219 97
p = 0.9 % phi = 13% source: Popkema
-EN correlates with a human antecedent.The correlation does not explain much of the observed variation (phi = 13 %)
![Page 12: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12. Quantifier: inkelde(n) ‘a few’
p < 0.1 % phi = 66% source: Popkema
-EN correlates with a human antecedent.The correlation explains a lot of the observed variation.
inkelde(n) + human - human-en 46 3-e 2 6
![Page 13: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13. Sommige and somlike ´some´
p < 0.1 % phi = 60% source: Popkema
sommige(n) + somlike (n)
+ human - human
-en 44 2-e 5 7
![Page 14: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14. Ferskate ‘several’
p > 5 % source: Frisian Language Corpus
No correlation!
ferskate(n) + human - human-en 3 0-e 18 12
![Page 15: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15. Conclusion
The presence of a human antecedent promotes the use of -EN, for some quantifiers. However, this correlation is far from being as absolute as suggested by the ANS.
beiden‘both’
inkelden‘a few’
somliken ‘some’
ferskaten‘several’
+ + + -
![Page 16: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16. Factor 2
Is there a correlation between the specific quantifier involved and the choice of –e / -en?
(Data on the previous slide already suggested this.)
![Page 17: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17. Comparison inkelde ‘a few’ with ferskate ‘several’
p < 0.1 % phi = 76 % source: Popkema
There is a correlation between the choice of quantifier and –E / -EN, and it explains a lot of the observed variation.
inkelde ferskate-en 49 2-e 8 26
![Page 18: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18. Comparison sommige+somlike ‘some’ with ferskate ‘several’
p < 0.1 % phi = 68% source: Popkema
The correlation explains a lot of the observed variation.
Sommige+somlike ferskate-en 46 2-e 12 26
![Page 19: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19. Conclusion
There is a correlation between the use of –e or –en, and the specific quantifier involved. Low degree quantifiers show a correlation between human antecedents and –EN. The medium degree quantifier ferskate has a preference for–E. This factor is not accommodated in the ANS.
![Page 20: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20. Factor 3
Is there a correlation between the construction type involved and the choice of suffix (–e / -en)?
![Page 21: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21.Partitive construction
* Beide(n) fan ‘efeintsjes both of the boys
Inkelde(n) / somlike(n) / ferskate(n) fan ‘ea fewsomeseveral of thefeintsjesboys
Beide ‘both’ is anyhow excluded from the partitive.
![Page 22: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22. Sommige ‘some’
`p < 0.1 % phi = 29 % source: FLC
The partitive correlates with –E, but it does not explain much of the observed variation.
sommige(n) partitive other-en 10 102-e 12 24
![Page 23: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23. Somlike(n) ‘some’
p < 0.1 % phi = 32 % source: FLC
The data indicate that the partitive construction exhibits relatively more the suffix –E with this quantifier.
somlike(n) Partitive other-en 40 307-e 15 12
![Page 24: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24. Inkelde(n) ‘a few’
p = 1,7 % phi = 41 % source: Popkema
The partitive correlates with –E.
inkelde(n) partitive other-en 2 47-e 3 5
![Page 25: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25. Ferskate ‘several’
p > 5% source:Popkema
• The partitive does not correlate with –E/-EN for this quantifier. (NB Few instances.)
ferskate(n) partitive other
-en 0 2
-e 10 6
![Page 26: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26. Conclusion
The partitive shows a preference for –E as compared with other constructions, for low degree quantifiers. For medium degree quantifiers, there seems to be no such correlation.
![Page 27: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27. Wy beide(n) ‘we both’
Clausal edge (one constituent):Wy beidebinneklearwe both are ready
Middle field (one or two constituents):Dan binnewy beideklearthen are we both ready
Only beide ‘both’ can enter these constructions.
![Page 28: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28. Wy beide(n) ‘we both’
p = 0.7% phi = 26 % source: FLC
Construction type is relevant, but explanatory value is low.
clausal edge middle field
wy beide 14 154wy beiden 4 5
![Page 29: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29. Conclusion 1
Construction type (partitive, middle field, clausal edge) promotes the choice of –E over –EN, but not to the same degree. Most –EN is found in the clausal edge position.
![Page 30: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30. Conclusion 2
• The partitive, the clausal edge and the middle field constructions all involve intratextual antecedents.
• Thus intratextual antecedenthood promotes the choice of –E over –EN.
• This tendency is in accordance with the rules of the ANS, but it is far from being as absolute as suggested by the ANS.
![Page 31: Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56816330550346895dd3b1b4/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31. Overall conclusions
The following three factors are relevant forthe choice of suffix (–E / -EN):
1. Human / nonhuman reference2. Specific quantifier involved3. Type of construction
The ANS promotes major and minor tendencies to absolute prescriptive rules (as far as Frisian is concerned, but by and large Dutch seems to exhibit similar facts).