Constructional contamination between two constructions with krijgen ‘to get’ in Dutch

The typology of word order in Hindi (Subject-Object-Verb, SOV) differs from that of English (Subject-Verb-Object, SVO). Bilinguals whose two languages have conflicting word order provide a unique opportunity to understand how word order affects language processing. Earlier behavioural and event-related brain potential (ERP) studies with Spanish-Basque bilinguals showed longer reading times and more errors in the comprehension of OSV sentences than SOV sentences in Basque language, indicating that non-canonical word orders (OSV) were difficult to process than canonical word order (SOV). This study was designed to explore how the difference in word order in Hindi and English languages affects N400 parameters in proficient Hindi-English bilinguals, using semantic congruity paradigm. Twenty-five proficient Hindi-English bilingual subjects were asked to silently read the congruent and incongruent sentences presented in one word at a time in both the languages. ERPs were recorded from midline frontal, central and parietal sites. The mean amplitude of the N400 effect at the parietal sites in Hindi-English proficient bilinguals was larger for English than for Hindi but there was no significant difference in the N400 latencies. Hindi-English bilingual subjects processed SOV and SVO sentences with equal ease as evidenced by the N400 latencies. Higher amplitude of the N400 effect with English sentences indicate that placing 'Object' as the final word makes sentences more predictable than verb as the final word. Understanding the word order difference might help to unravel the neurophysiological mechanisms of language comprehension and may offer some insights in terms of functional advantage of a particular word order in bilinguals.

Functional constraints on inversion in English and Farsi

Transient adenosine infusion and washout before ischemia protects the heart against myocardial damage during ischemia and reperfusion in pigs -energy metabolism and regional myocardial blood flow

We present evidence that the supposed processing advantage for an SVfinO word order over an SOVfin word order in German argued for by Weyerts, Penke, Münte, Heinze, and Clahsen (2002) is supported by neither experimental nor theoretical evidence. Specifically, we show (a) that the frontocentral negativity for an SOVfin in comparison to an SVfinO word order in Weyerts et al.'s Experiments 2 and 3 is reducible to more general differences in the electrophysiological responses elicited by nouns versus verbs in a sentence context, and (b) that the P600 difference between the two word orders in Experiment 2, as well as the reading time differences in Experiment 1, result from the fact that the two supposedly ungrammatical conditions actually differ in their degree of ill-formedness. We conclude that there is no evidence for a processing disadvantage for SOVfin, thus reconciling Weyerts et al.'s results on German sentence processing with the grammatical regularities of German.

This paper looks comparatively at the Finnish kyl(lä) and Estonian küll, which function as an epistemic adverb and a particle in both languages, and have a common origin in the noun ‘abundance’. Even though the word is mostly used to formulate positive answers, it also occurs in negative utterances. This is the focus of the current paper, which at the same time touches on the complex area of word order. Even though both languages feature more or less free pragmatic word order, the patterns for negative utterances which contain both the negation word ei and kyl(lä)/küll are varied, especially regarding the placement of adverbs and particles. On the basis of conversational data the study establishes four patterns for Finnish((X+)ei,en+X+kyl(lä);ei+X+kyllä#;ei+V+kyl(lä)+Y;X+ei+ kyl(lä) +Y, where X denotes one or several noun phrases and Y an adverbial) and three patterns for Estonian (X + ei + V (+X) + küll + other; ei + V + küll# (+ other); X/Y + küll + ei + V + other), where only the last one is frequent. Accordingly, Finnish reveals more flexibility in word order and negation-initial patterns, while in Estonian ei regularly follows küll, which is impossible in Finnish. The negation word and the finite verb have to occur near each other in Estonian but not in Finnish. In order to analyze the interactional functions of these patterns, the conversation analytic method is used which makes it possible to reveal participants’ local understanding of each prior action. The study shows that there are two relatively small functional areas where the word order patterns coincide in Finnish and Estonian: in a concessive use ((X+) ei, en + V + kyl(lä)/küll), and when kyl(lä)/küll is used as an utterance-final epistemic marker. The latter pattern, however, is extremely rare in Estonian, and has developed a special implication of ‘as a matter of fact’ in Finnish. In other functions, the word order is different. In particular, in answers to polar questions the ordering of the negation word and kyl(lä) or küll is the opposite, with negation preceding kyl(lä) in Finnish and following küll in Estonian. While in Finnish the word kyl(lä) functions as an epistemic reassurance for the recipient, in Estonian the küll + ei pattern is typically used for building contrast with the prior and setting the initial element into focus. Regardless of the phonological and historical similarity, the syntactic patterns for this adverb/ particle are different, which may reflect more overarching differences in word order between the two languages – something that remains to be explored. At least when it comes to kyl(lä) and küll, Finnish word order is more flexible, while Estonian displays a distinct grammaticalized pattern. Accordingly, the function of the “same” epistemic word emerges in a more content-related manner in Finnish, where it expresses speaker certainty, and as more of a syntactic device in Estonian, where it marks another element in the clause as being contrasted. This illustrates the decisive role of interactional and syntactic context in (the development of) word meaning.

This chapter looks at basic word order, providing an overview of generative accounts of differences in word order between German, French, and English. It reviews GenSLA studies that investigate English word order in learners with German-type or French-type first languages and that show how the word order properties from one’s native language can lead to difficulties in acquisition in the second language. On this basis, it is argued that word order is an area which should be explicitly taught and advocates development of grammatical enquiry skills in learners, through a grammaring approach to teaching.KeywordsWord OrderTarget LanguageExplicit InstructionNegative EvidenceGrammaticality JudgmentThese 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.

This article compares the monolingual Basque predicative constructions with bilingual Basque-Spanish predicative constructions. The speech data for the study were collected in the Greater Bilbao area of the Basque Country between 2005 and 2012. The results suggest that code-switching may trigger the convergence of predicative constructions and have a significant impact on the general word order patterns. The monolingual predicative constructions in the data mostly follow the canonical Basque sxv word order (~81%), but the bilingual predicative constructions diverge from this word order in that the predicative element is located in a post-verbal position, as in Spanish (~80%). The Spanish lexical elements seem to be strongly associated with the corresponding Spanish construction, the word order of which is then applied to otherwise Basque predicative constructions. I explain the predominance of the Spanish word order in the bilingual constructions by a combination of processing-related factors and sociolinguistic factors.

What is a sentence? Which communicative functions do sentences fulfill? Which sentences can be differentiated? This article focuses on the grammatical knowledge on sentences, which fulfill major communicative functions (declarative sentences, interrogative sentences, imperative sentences). A sentence is defined as a construction bearing at least one finite verb. Complex sentences either have several finite verbs or one or more finite verbs plus infinitive or participle constructions, which can be transformed into finite constructions. Structurally, complex sentences consist of either several independent coordinated clauses and thus constitute a compound sentence or bear a hierarchical structure, which consists of independent clauses (matrix clause) and subordinated clauses. On the one hand subordinate clauses have sentence status, since they include a declaration, on the other hand they also function as constituents (or parts of constituents) of the matrix sentence. When classifying the pre-field, middle field and post-field of complex sentences, subordinate clauses generally are located in the post-field, less frequently in the pre-field. There are differences in sentence complexity and word order between spoken and written language.

Besednemu redu se v slovenskem jezikoslovju v preteklosti ni posvečalo veliko pozornosti, čeprav je prva razprava na to temo izšla že v letih 1891–1892. Napisal jo je Matija Murko, ki je obravnaval besedni red pri naslonkah in naslonskem nizu. Večina razprav je v preteklosti analizirala besedni red v umetnostnih besedilih, šele v zadnjih petnajstih letih pa se na Slovenskem pojavljajo tudi razprave o besednem redu v spontanih govorjenih besedilih.Pričujoči prispevek obravnava besedni red v govorjenem narečnem jeziku glede na pravila stalne stave v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku, pri čemer se osredotoča samo na izbrana pravila stalne stave. Analiza besedil iz vseh slovenskih narečnih skupin je pokazala, da besednoredne značilnosti slovenskih narečnih govorjenih besedil lahko razdelimo v tri skupine. Prva skupina značilnosti, kot npr. izhodiščni položaj naslonk v izreku, je značilna za besedila iz vseh narečnih skupin, zato lahko rečemo, da gre za splošno značilnost slovenskega narečnega diskurza. Druga skupina zajema značilnosti, ki jih najdemo samo v besedilih določene narečne skupine, npr. ločena stava členka ne in glagola v primorskih narečjih ter stava preteklega deležnika glagola biti na koncu izreka v panonski narečni skupini. Tovrstne značilnosti lahko razumemo kot posebne značilnosti posameznih slovenskih narečnih diskurzov. Tretja skupina značilnosti pa so tiste značilnosti, ki jih sicer najdemo v besedilih vseh narečnih skupin, vendar pa se razlikujejo v pogostosti rabe, npr. stava levega ujemalnega pridevniškega prilastka in desnega samostalniškega prilastka in predložne zveze v samostalniški besedni zvezi ter stava osebne in neosebne glagolske oblike na koncu izreka. Pogostost rabe je v takih primerih tisto merilo, ki pokaže, ali je besednoredna značilnost ustaljena in jo zato lahko razumemo kot ustaljeno besednoredno različico v narečju oziroma narečno besednoredno pravilo ali pa je sporadična in kot taka rezultat osnovne zakonitosti govorjenega jezika, tj. kratkega načrtovalnega časa, ki ne dopušča premišljenega strukturiranja izrekov.

This study examines differences in word order between two translations of Ibsen’s play An enemy of the people into Hebrew. Both versions were translated by Rivka Meshulach, with approximately 25 years between them. In the first version word order conforms to the norms of Classical Hebrew. In the second version, however, the translator changed word order so that the language would be closer to contemporary spoken Hebrew. This is illustrated through examples related to various syntactic constituents, including subject–predicate, predicate complements, parentheme and address forms. The reasoning behind this tendency focuses on the change in the norms of written language. As opposed to the normative restrictions which were widely accepted in written Hebrew just a generation ago, the current trend is for features of contemporary spoken language to be used in literature and theater.

Verbal cluster order and processing complexity

In this paper we argue that verb clusters in Dutch varieties are merged and linearized in fully ascending (1-2-3) or fully descending (3-2-1) orders. We argue that verb clusters that deviate from these orders involve non-verbal material: adjectival participles, or nominal infinitives. As a result, our approach does not involve any unmotivated movements that are specific for verb clusters.Support for our analysis comes from (i) the interpretation of verb clusters; (ii) the fact that order variation depends on the types of verbs involved, which can be explained by selectional requirements of the verbs; and (iii) the geographic co-occurrence patterns of various orders. First, the 1-3-2 and 3-1-2 orders are argued to be ascending orders with a non-verbal 3. Indeed these orders occur in grammars that have ascending, rather than descending, verb clusters. Secondly, the 1-3-2 order is argued to be an interrupted V1-V2 cluster with a non-verbal 3. Indeed, this order is most common in the region where non-verbal material can interrupt the verb cluster.Our analysis of word order variation in verb clusters in terms of principles of grammar is further supported by an experiment in which we asked a large number of speakers distributed over the Dutch language area to rank all logically possible orders, including orders that are not common in their own variety of Dutch. The results demonstrate that speakers apply their syntactic knowledge to rank verb cluster orders that they do not use themselves. We argue that this knowledge cannot be due to familiarity with the various orders.

While a clear variability of canonical word order across languages has been found, such a finding is not reflected in recent neuroimaging studies of language processing. Languages having a canonical word order of Subject- Object-Verb (SOV) in a sentence make up approximately 43% of world languages, while languages having a Subject- Verb-Object (SVO) word order make up approximately 37%. Sufficient attention has not been given to this typological difference in neuroimaging studies. In this article, we review neuroimaging studies of sentence processing to examine whether the typological difference of canonical word order in a sentence is represented in brain activation results or not. As a result of this literature survey, an effect from the difference in canonical word order was found to exist between SVO and SOV languages for brain activation during sentence comprehension. This effect was found mainly in the left inferior and middle frontal gyri, precentral gyrus, supplemental motor area, inferior and middle temporal gyri, temporal pole, hippocampus, and cerebellum. These results imply that a difference in canonical word order causes a different sentence processing pattern, as well as a different load in the working memory process.

The purpose of this paper is to show that there is a striking difference in word order between Modern Japanese and Early Old Japanese. Early Old Japanese lacks the canonical transitive pattern [Subject-ga Object-o V]. The basic word order in Early Old Japanese is [Subject-ga/no Object-O V], in which the subject is marked by the genitive ga or no and a morphologically unmarked object must appear immediately adjacent to the verb. When the object is marked by wo, it is obligatorily moved over a subject, resulting in [Object-wo Subject-ga/no V]. Following Miyagawa (1989) and Miyagawa and Ekida (2003), I argue that a bare object is assigned abstract case under the strict adjacency requirement, but that wo in Early Old Japanese does not function as an accusative case. The particle wo differs crucially from the case particle o in Modern Japanese in that it marks not only the direct object of a transitive verb, but all kinds of internal arguments of both transitive and intransitive verbs. Furthermore, wo conveys a definite interpretation. An element marked by wo moves to a particular structural position, namely Spec(vP) or Spec(CP), where it is assigned definite/topic interpretations.

Linear vs. non-linear translation in parallel text reading