The relationship between grammaticality ratings and corpus frequencies: A case study into word order variability in the midfield of German clauses
The relationship between grammaticality ratings and corpus frequencies: A case study into word order variability in the midfield of German clauses
复制标题
语法评级与语料库频率之间的关系：德语子句中场词序变异的案例研究
DOI：
10.1515/9783110197549.329
复制
发表时间：
2005
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Karin Harbusch
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Kempen;Karin Harbusch
德语小句的中场语序是灵活的，这几乎是一个普遍现象。虽然声明，这种效果并不声称“什么都行”（参见。Eisenberg（1994，第12章）; Rambow（1994）; Muller（1999）），他们认为德语小句中的语序变异性比荷兰语和英语小句中的语序变异性大得多。以下三个制约论元NP排序的因素在语言学和心理语言学文献中占有突出地位（参见：Uszkoreit（1987），Pechmann et al.（1996），Keller（2000））：C1：代词性非代词性C2：主格性非主格性，C3：与格性非主格性（其中“前”表示“在前”）。最近，Keller（2000）系统地探讨了德语语序的直觉。从语言学上未经训练的母语者，他引起了“分级语法”的判断，通过一种新的技术的基础上心理物理方法的幅度估计（巴德等人，1996年）。在他的一个实验中，他确定了双及物从句中C1、C2和C3的强度。这三个“优先”限制都不是“绝对的”，因为违反这些限制会导致极低的可接受性/语法性判断（低至vi-
It is almost a commonplace that word order in the midfield of German clauses is flexible. Although statements to this effect do not claim that “anything goes” (cf. Eisenberg (1994, Ch. 12); Rambow (1994); Muller (1999)), they suggest that word order variability in German clauses is considerably greater than, for example, in Dutch and English ones. The following three constraints on the ordering of argument NPs have figured prominently in the linguistic and psycholinguistic literature (cf. Uszkoreit (1987), Pechmann et al. (1996), Keller (2000)): C1: Pronominal ≺ Non–pronominal C2: Nominative ≺ Non–nominative, and C3: Dative ≺ Accusative (where “≺” means “precedes”). Recently, intuitions about word order in German have been probed in a systematic fashion by Keller (2000). From linguistically untrained native speakers he elicited “graded grammaticality” judgments via a novel technique based on the psychophysical method of Magnitude Estimation (Bard et al. 1996). In one of his experiments, he determined the strengths of C1, C2 and C3 in ditransitive subordinate clauses. None of the three “precedence” constraints turned out to be “absolute” in the sense that their violation gave rise to extremely low acceptability/grammaticality judgments (as low as vi-