Is language efficient or redundant? How language users distinguish the agent from the recipient in English and Dutch
peer reviewed ; Language is systemically redundant. That is, it often boasts several strategies to perform the same function (Van de Velde 2014). For instance, to form plurals, German may use an -e ending, as in Hund ~ Hunde ‘dog’, an -s ending, as in Hotel ~ Hotels ‘hotel’, an -en ending, as in Rechnung ~ Rechnungen ‘bill’ and so on. Similarly, to form the past tense, Dutch may use ablaut, as in bid ~ bad ‘pray’ or a -de suffix, as in graaf ~ graafde ‘digged’. However, such systemic redundancy does not entail syntagmatic redundancy. In other words, it is not necessarily the case that the vari... Mehr ...
Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Dokumenttyp: | conference paper not in proceedings |
Erscheinungsdatum: | 2022 |
Schlagwörter: | redundancy / corpus / transfer verbs / dative / english / dutch / Arts & humanities / Languages & linguistics / Arts & sciences humaines / Langues & linguistique |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Permalink: | https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27032502 |
Datenquelle: | BASE; Originalkatalog |
Powered By: | BASE |
Link(s) : | https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/297331 |
peer reviewed ; Language is systemically redundant. That is, it often boasts several strategies to perform the same function (Van de Velde 2014). For instance, to form plurals, German may use an -e ending, as in Hund ~ Hunde ‘dog’, an -s ending, as in Hotel ~ Hotels ‘hotel’, an -en ending, as in Rechnung ~ Rechnungen ‘bill’ and so on. Similarly, to form the past tense, Dutch may use ablaut, as in bid ~ bad ‘pray’ or a -de suffix, as in graaf ~ graafde ‘digged’. However, such systemic redundancy does not entail syntagmatic redundancy. In other words, it is not necessarily the case that the various strategies are combined in one and the same utterance. In fact, double forms such as Dutch begin ~ begonde, lit. ‘begin ~ ‘began ed’, appear quite rare (De Smet 2021: 83). The reason seems obvious: such redundant marking is superfluous, und would unnecessarily burden production processing (Sinnemäki 2009; Kurumada and Jaeger 2015; Leufkens 2015). As such, syntagmatic redundancy would be avoided for reasons of efficiency. This may be done either directly by language users, or by grammar evolving in such a way that various strategies strictly complement one another, and do not overlap. However, it has also been argued that syntagmatic redundancy is actually useful and therefore common, because (i) it enhances the robustness of the linguistic signal against information loss (Fedzechkina et al. 2012: 17897; Levshina 2021: 3), and (ii) it increases learnability (Sloutsky and Robinson 2013; Tal and Arnon 2022). We test these competing accounts by investigating agent-recipient disambiguation in English and Dutch. These languages may employ the same four morphosyntactic strategies to distinguish agents from recipients, viz. (i) Constituent order, e.g. Morgen kan je mijn baas niet zomaar een uitbrander geven. (ii) Nominal marking, e.g. Mijn baas kan jij morgen niet zomaar een uitbrander geven. (iii) Verbal agreement, e.g. Mijn baas kun je morgen niet zomaar een uitbrander geven. (iv) Prepositional marking, e.g. Aan mijn baas kan ...