Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers

1. Use of final –n for independently used quantifiers Eric Hoekstra Morfologiedagen 2011, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 21-22 december 2011

2. 2. Twouses of quantifiers • Attributiveusage • Independent use

3. 3. Attributiveuse Beidefammen(wieneoan it dûnsjen)both women were at the dancing“Both young women were dancing.”

4. 4. Independent use Beidenwieneoan it dûnsjenboth were at the dancing“Both were dancing.” The same facts hold of Dutch.

5. 5. Prescriptiverulesfor Dutch independentlyusedquantifiers They are writtenwith –n (ANS 1997:366) iff (i) they don’t have an antecedent within the text (ii) they refer to humans. Otherwise, write –e.

6. 6. Relevant factors (hypotheses) • Human / nonhumanreference (ANS) • Specificquantifierinvolved • Intratextual / extratextual antecedent (ANS) => type of construction(Den Hertog 1973, Popkema 1979)

7. 7. Type of construction Partitive constructionautomaticallyentailsanintratextual antecedent: Sommige fan ‘e feintsjessome of the boys

8. 8. Relevance of my paper The claims made in the literature are allbased on the author’sintuitions, not on corpus based research, with the exception of Popkema (1979).

9. 9. Popkema (1979) • Does notcalculatesignificance. • Does notcalculatephi-value (explanatoryvalue). • Uses a smaller data set, that is, the collection of writtencitations of the Dictionary of the Frisianlanguage • Does notinvestigate the mentioned factors systematically, since he triestoestablish a prescriptiverule.

10. 10. Factor 1 Is there a correlationbetween the use of –e or –en, and the presence of a human or nonhuman antecedent? (Significanceandphi-coefficient:http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/tab2x2.html)

11. 11. Quantifier: beide(n) ‘both’ 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 %)

12. 12. Quantifier: inkelde(n) ‘a few’ p < 0.1 % phi = 66%source: Popkema -EN correlates with a human antecedent. The correlationexplains a lot of the observedvariation.

13. 13. Sommigeand somlike ´some´ p < 0.1 % phi = 60%source: Popkema

14. 14. Ferskate ‘several’ p > 5 % source: Frisian Language Corpus No correlation!

15. 15. Conclusion The presence of a human antecedent promotes the use of -EN, forsomequantifiers. However, thiscorrelation is far frombeing as absolute as suggestedby the ANS.

16. 16. Factor 2 Is there a correlationbetween the specificquantifierinvolvedand the choice of –e / -en? (Data on the previous slide alreadysuggestedthis.)

17. 17. Comparisoninkelde ‘a few’ withferskate ‘several’ p < 0.1 % phi = 76 % source: Popkema There is a correlationbetween the choice of quantifierand –E / -EN, anditexplains a lot of the observedvariation.

18. 18. Comparisonsommige+somlike‘some’ withferskate ‘several’ p < 0.1 % phi = 68% source: Popkema The correlationexplains a lot of the observedvariation.

19. 19. Conclusion There is a correlationbetween the use of –e or –en, and the specificquantifierinvolved. Low degreequantifiers show a correlationbetween human antecedents and –EN. The medium degreequantifierferskate has a preferencefor–E. This factor is notaccommodated in the ANS.

20. 20. Factor 3 Is there a correlationbetween the construction type involvedand the choice of suffix (–e / -en)?

21. 21.Partitive construction * Beide(n) fan ‘e feintsjesboth of the boys Inkelde(n) / somlike(n) / ferskate(n) fan ‘ea few some several of thefeintsjesboys Beide ‘both’ is anyhow excluded from the partitive.

22. 22. Sommige ‘some’ `p < 0.1 % phi= 29 % source: FLC The partitivecorrelateswith –E, but it does not explain much of the observed variation.

23. 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.

24. 24. Inkelde(n) ‘a few’ p = 1,7 % phi= 41 %source: Popkema The partitivecorrelateswith –E.

25. 25. Ferskate ‘several’ p > 5% source:Popkema • The partitive does notcorrelatewith –E/-EN forthisquantifier. (NB Few instances.)

26. 26. Conclusion The partitive shows a preferencefor –E as comparedwithotherconstructions, for low degreequantifiers. For medium degreequantifiers, thereseemstobe no suchcorrelation.

27. 27. Wy beide(n) ‘we both’ Clausaledge (one constituent): Wybeide binneklearwe both are ready Middle field (one or two constituents):Dan binnewy beide klearthen arewe both ready Onlybeide ‘both’ can enter these constructions.

28. 28. Wy beide(n) ‘we both’ p = 0.7% phi = 26 % source: FLC Construction type is relevant, but explanatoryvalue is low.

29. 29. Conclusion 1 Construction type (partitive, middle field, clausaledge) promotes the choice of –E over –EN, but notto the samedegree. Most –EN is found in the clausaledgeposition.

30. 30. Conclusion 2 • The partitive, the clausaledgeand the middle field constructionsallinvolveintratextual antecedents. • Thusintratextualantecedenthoodpromotes the choice of –E over –EN. • Thistendency is in accordancewith the rules of the ANS, but it is far frombeing as absolute as suggestedby the ANS.

31. 31. Overall conclusions The followingthree factors are relevant forthe choice of suffix (–E / -EN): • Human / nonhumanreference • Specificquantifierinvolved • Type of construction The ANS promotes major and minor tendenciesto absolute prescriptiverules(as far as Frisian is concerned, but byand large Dutch seemstoexhibitsimilarfacts).

32. Thankyouforyour attention! ehoekstra@fryske-akademy.nl