Contrasting two potentiality constructions in Dutch

1
Contrasting two potentiality constructions in
Dutch

• Maria Mos and Ad Backus (maria.mos_at_uvt.nl
  a.m.backus_at_uvt.nl)
• Tilburg University, The Netherlands

2
Case study -BAAR and IS TE

• BAAR
• Derivational affix, more or less equivalent to
  able
• E.g. leesbaar read-able (legible)
• Dit handschrift is leesbaar
• This handwriting is legible

• IS TE
• Modal infinitive construction, no direct English
  equivalent (compare X is hard to find)
• E.g. is te verdedig-en - is to defend-INF (is
  defendable)
• Deze opinie is te verdedig-en
• This opinion is to defend-INF
• This opinion is defendable

3
Case study -BAAR and IS TE

• Very similar meaning X can be V-ed
• Questions
• Are they really synonyms?
• Are they productive?

4
-BAAR and IS TE corpus

• Corpus Gesproken Nederlands (Corpus of Spoken
  Dutch, CGN)
• 10 million words
• Contemporary Dutch
• 2/3 Netherlands, 1/3 Flanders (Belgium)
• 14 genres, ranging from telephone conversations
  to official lectures

5
-BAAR and IS TE corpus

• -BAAR
• Search for word class Adj. form BAAR
• 261 different types
• 3908 tokens

The most frequent types (obviously fixed
units) Type frequency Translation blijkbaar
1134 evidently openbaar 306
public beschikbaar 173 available middelbaar 11
5 secondary zichtbaar 103 visible onvoorstelb
aar 81 unimaginable schijnbaar 74
apparently haalbaar 71 feasible bereikbaar 69
within reach dankbaar 63
grateful
6
-BAAR and IS TE corpus

• -BAAR
• In infrequent instantiations (Nlt5, 50 types in
  the CGN)
• The meaning is non-Agent argument of the Verb
  can be V-ed (passive, potential)
• This can be the traditional object in transitive
  verbs (drinkbaar -drinkable, ondoorprikbaar
  unprickable, said of a blister)
• Or a (usually) implicit argument (adembaar
  -breathable, roddelbaar -gossipable)
• The stem is verbal (48/50)
• The stem is transitive (45/50)

7
-BAAR and IS TE corpus

• IS TE
• Search for IS (optional 03 words) TE
  INFINITIVE
• 120 different types
• 710 tokens

The most frequent verbs doen do 161 zien
see 105 hopen hope 77 zeggen
say 67 geloven believe 23 vergelijken
compare 18 vinden find 15 merken
notice 12 spreken talk 10 lezen read 7
This hides the existence of several more
inclusive units, especially with niet is niet te
doen cant be done is niet te geloven is
unbelievable is niet te vinden is hard to find is
niet te spreken is not happy is ver te zoeken is
hard to find
8
-BAAR and IS TE corpus

• IS TE
• In infrequent instantiations the meaning of the
  construction is
• A predicative comment (the contribution of the
  copula) on the relative difficulty or ease with
  which an action can be done
• with the connotation that this difficulty or ease
  exceeds what could be expected.
• stated as the personal opinion of the speaker
• In many cases, the difficulty or ease is
  explicitly indicated through an adverb of degree.

9
Corpus findings summary

• For both constructions we find
• Large number of types (suggests productivity)
• Large number of tokens
• Unequal distribution of tokens over types (some
  frequent, many occasionally)
• Entrenchment of both template and many units

10
Challenge

• Observation many instantiations are familiar
  (most?)
• Question are they ever productively used?
• Tentative answer yes, occasionally.
• Basic observation we can make up novel
  instantiations.
• Question when do people use the templates? If
  they have any?

11
Productivity vs. lexicalisation

• A productive construction is
• A pattern with one or more open slots that are
  available for new forms
• The combination of this pattern with (a) new
  word(s) is a structurally acceptable and
  meaningful unit
• E.g. The X-er, the Y-er
• un-ADJ

12
Productivity vs. lexicalisation

• Tension between elegant (abstract) description
  and psychological reality
• Do speakers have these schemas in their
  constructicon? Or are most instantiations
  lexicalized expressions?
• Thats the question
• Are regular forms always formed by productive use
  of the schema?
• Answer No

13
-BAAR and IS TE experiment

• Magnitude estimation
• Comparable to grammaticality judgment task, but
• Without a fixed scale participants assign a
  number to each stimulus, reflecting its
  acceptability
• Advantages over traditional grammaticality
  judgment
• No fixed number of points on the scale
• No middle point which may reflect either
  average acceptability or lack of opinion on a
  stimulus

14
-BAAR and IS TE experiment

• Are these constructions productive?
• If
• We make stimuli (novel forms) productively, that
  differ with respect to verb category,
• And
• Participants distinguish consistently in the
  acceptability between items of different
  categories
• Then we know that
• they have some form of (abstract) mental
  representation)
• the categories are psychologically real.

15
-BAAR and IS TE experiment

• Magnitude estimation
• Item variables
• CONSTRUCTION TYPE
• IS TE (N24), -BAAR (N24), fillers (N36)
• VERB CATEGORY
• Semantic roles and argument structure (5
  different categories)

16
-BAAR and IS TE experiment

• V opt. transitive Agent Patient (N8)
  drogen-dry
• E.g. Een wollen trui is niet droogbaar in de
  machine (a
  wool sweater is not dry-able in the machine)

17
-BAAR and IS TE experiment

• V opt. transitive Agent Patient (N8)
  drogen-dry
• E.g. Een wollen trui is niet droogbaar in de
  machine (a
  wool sweater is not dry-able in the machine)
• V transitive Agent Patient (N12)
  maaien-mow
• E.g. Die jungle die de buren hun achtertuin
  noemen is niet te maaien
• (that jungle that the neighbours their
  backyard call is not to mow its impossible to
  mow that jungle the neighbours call their back
  garden)

18
-BAAR and IS TE experiment

• V opt. transitive Agent Patient (N8)
  drogen-dry
• E.g. Een wollen trui is niet droogbaar in de
  machine (a
  wool sweater is not dry-able in the machine)
• V transitive Agent Patient (N12)
  maaien-mow
• E.g. Die jungle die de buren hun achtertuin
  noemen is niet te maaien
• (that jungle that the neighbours their
  backyard call is not to mow its impossible to
  mow that jungle the neighbours call their back
  garden)
• V intransitive, implied obj./patient (N8)
  zingen-sing
• E.g. De tekst van dit liedje is zo lastig dat
  het bijna niet zingbaar is
• (the text of this song is so difficult that it
  almost not sing-able is)

19
-BAAR and IS TE experiment

• V transitive Stimulus Experiencer (N16)
• two subgroups
• passive ungrammatical (N8) lukken-succeed
• E.g. Het is een ambitieus plan, maar als iedereen
  helpt is het zeker lukbaar
• (it is an ambitious plan, but if everyone helps
  it is sure succeed-able)
• Het is me gelukt vs. Ik word gelukt.
• (Es ist mir gelungen vs. Ich werde gelungen)

20
-BAAR and IS TE experiment

• V transitive Stimulus Experiencer (N16)
• two subgroups
• passive ungrammatical (N8) lukken-succeed
• E.g. Het is een ambitieus plan, maar als iedereen
  helpt is het zeker lukbaar
• (it is an ambitious plan, but if everyone helps
  it is sure succeed-able)
• Het is me gelukt vs. Ik word gelukt.
• (Es ist mir gelungen vs. Ich werde gelungen)
• passive marginally acceptable (N8)
  afschrikken-deter
• E.g. Ongewenst bezoek is af te schrikken met een
  alarmsignaal (unwanted visit is
  off to scare with an alarm signal -
  unwanted visitors can be
  deterred with an alarm signal)
• De menigte schrikte me af vs. ?Ik werd
  afgeschrikt door de menigte
• (The crowd scared me off vs I was scared off by
  the crowd.)

21
-BAAR and IS TE experiment

• Setup of the experiment
• Procedure online experiment, introduction test
  phase. Duration main experiment 15-20 minutes
• Participants
• 69 adults
• 138 children, grade 6 (11-12 yrs)

22
-BAAR and IS TE experiment

• Main results adults
• Reliable test (Cronbachs a .85)
• Difference between construction types
  IS TE gt BAAR (Anova, df 2, p.39),
  fillers not different from either type
• Difference between verb categories
  Experiencer verbs lt all Agent-Patient verbs
  (Anova, df 4, p.000. Post-hoc Bonferroni V Exp
  lt others, plt.007)
• 1. V opt. transitive Agent Patient (mean Z .391)
• 2. V transitive Agent Patient (mean Z .229)
• 3. V intransitive, implied obj./patient (mean Z
  .201)
• 4. V transitive Experiencer subject pass (mean Z
  -.705)
• 5. V transitive Experiencer subject pass (mean Z
  -.533)

23
-BAAR and IS TE experiment
IS TE and BAAR over different verb types adults
24
-BAAR and IS TE experiment

• Main results children
• Reliable test (Cronbachs a .93)
• No significant difference between construction
  types (Anova, df 2, p.39),
• Difference between verb categories
  Experiencer verbs lt all Agent-Patient verbs
• Mean Z-scores
• V opt. transitive Agent Patient .296
• V transitive Agent Patient .087
• V intransitive, implied obj./patient .091
• V transitive Experiencer pass -.374
• V transitive Experiencer pass -236

25
-BAAR and IS TE experiment
IS TE and BAAR over different verb types children
26
-BAAR and IS TE experiment
IS TE and BAAR over different verb types adults
Acceptable passive higher acceptability of IS
TE (compared to BAAR)
27
Experiment summary

• Stimulus Experiencer verbs are clearly worse than
  other categories
• Speakers have a mental representation of the
  constructions, which includes information about
  the types of verbs preferred.
• Both constructions are productive
• On Stimulus Experiencer verbs with a (marginally)
  acceptable passive, IS TE scores much higher than
  BAAR
• Constructions are not entirely synonymous

28

• Thank you!
• If you have any questions, comments or
  suggestions, do not hesitate to get in touch
• A.M.Backus_at_uvt.nl, Maria.Mos_at_uvt.nl