Differences between Russian and Czech in the Use of Aspect in Narrative Discourse and Factual Contexts

Gehrke, Berit

doi:10.3390/languages7020155

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The number of parallel corpus-based papers in this Special Issue (see Bogaards (2022); Corre (2022); Fuchs and González (2022); Gehrke (2022); Mulder et al (2022); de Swart et al (2022)) bears witness to the increasing role that parallel corpora play in recent crosslinguistic research on tense and aspect. In the early 2000s, however, the same empirical domain led some members of the linguistic community to turn their backs on parallel corpus research, capitalizing on the issue of representativeness (McEnery and Xiao 1999;McEnery et al 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parallel Corpus Research and Target Language Representativeness: The Contrastive, Typological, and Translation Mining Traditions

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper surveys the strategies that the Contrastive, Typological, and Translation Mining parallel corpus traditions rely on to deal with the issue of target language representativeness of translations. On the basis of a comparison of the corpus architectures and research designs of the three traditions, we argue that they have each developed their own representativeness strategies: (i) monolingual control corpora (Contrastive tradition), (ii) limits on the scope of research questions (Typological tradition), and (iii) parallel control corpora (Translation Mining tradition). We introduce normalized pointwise mutual information (NPMI) as a bi-directional measure of cross-linguistic association, allowing for an easy comparison of the outcomes of different traditions and the impact of the monolingual and parallel control corpus representativeness strategies. We further argue that corpus size has a major impact on the reliability of the monolingual control corpus strategy and that a sequential parallel control corpus strategy is preferable for smaller corpora.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parallel Corpus Research and Target Language Representativeness: The Contrastive, Typological, and Translation Mining Traditions

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the translations of the first chapter of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (henceforth HP). Translation corpus research has recently gained traction as a valuable tool in the cross-linguistic semanticist's toolbox next to questionnaires and experimental methodologies (see, e.g., Bremmers, Liu, van der Klis & Le Bruyn 2022;Mulder, Schoenmakers, Hoenselaar & de Hoop 2022;Gehrke 2022;Klis, Le Bruyn & Swart 2022).…”

Section: On Classifier Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The theory of argument formation: between kinds and properties

Liu,

Patil,

Schurr

et al. 2024

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chierchia (1998) developed a cross-linguistic extension to Carlsons seminal work on bare nouns (BNs), producing the most influential theory of argument formation to date, henceforth the Kinds Approach (KA). The core achievements of the KA included the derivation of the generalized narrow scope behavior of BNs and of the existence of generalized classifier languages. There are cracks in the picture, though. The narrow scope behavior of BNs is more fine-grained than is generally assumed and the KA lacks the flexibility to deal with it (Le Bruyn & Swart 2022). The appeal of the KAs derivation of the existence of generalized classifier languages heavily relied on all nouns in these languages being mass-like, an assumption that has since been abandoned (Chierchia 2010; Jiang 2020). These developments call for a reassessment of the KA and one of its closest competitors: Krifka 2003. Krifka assumes nouns never start life as kinds but as predicates, leading us to qualify his approach as a Properties Approach (PA).We adopt a translation corpus approach and assess the explanatory potential of the KA and the PA by comparing the distribution of BNs and related expressions in (in)definite contexts across six typologically different languages. Our results show that the PA has a distinct advantage over the KA and identify pseudo-incorporation and the way it varies across languages as a primary focus for future research.

show abstract

Does the Presuppositional Imperfective Exist in Russian (and Slavic)?

Dickey

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does the Presuppositional Imperfective Exist in Russian (and Slavic)? This paper discusses data which are problematic for the hypothesis that the presupposition that an action has taken place directly motivates the use of the imperfective aspect in statements of fact in Russian, and by extension in other Slavic languages. It argues that while imperfective statements of fact occur in presuppositional contexts, such usage is instead motivated by particular semantic elements/discourse effects, such as the construal of a situation as an aterminative process or as repeatable, construals which also motivate non-presuppositional imperfective statements of fact. Similarly, it discusses cases of presuppositional perfective usage, which are likewise triggered by semantic elements that have been independently motivated for non-presuppositional perfective usage. It is further suggested that presuppositional imperfectives can be explained as cases in which the speaker ignores the original causal chain of an action and mentions the event with some orthogonal purposes in mind. In contrast, the perfective tracks the event in its originally intended causal chain. Lastly, it presents data indicating that presuppositional imperfectives in Czech and Croatian reflect the construal of an action as a process. Czy w języku rosyjskim (i słowiańszczyźnie) istnieje imperfektyw presupozycyjny? W artykule omówiono dane, które są problematyczne z punktu widzenia hipotezy, że presupozycja, iż działanie miało miejsce, bezpośrednio motywuje użycie aspektu niedokonanego w stwierdzeniach faktu w języku rosyjskim, a tym samym w innych językach słowiańskich. Autor argumentuje, że imperfektywne stwierdzenia faktu występują w kontekstach presupozycyjnych, a takie użycie jest motywowane przez określone elementy semantyczne / efekty dyskursu, takie jak interpretacja sytuacji jako procesu aterminatywnego lub powtarzalnego, co również motywuje niepresupozycyjne imperfektywne stwierdzenia faktu. Omówione zostały ponadto przypadki presupozycyjnego użycia perfektywnego, które także są wywoływane przez elementy semantyczne, które zostały niezależnie umotywowane dla użycia niepresupozycyjnego perfektywnego. Zasugerowano, że presupozycyjne imperfektywa można wyjaśnić jako przypadki, w których nadawca komunikatu ignoruje pierwotny łańcuch przyczynowy czynności i wspomina o zdarzeniu, mając na uwadze pewne niezależne cele. W przeciwieństwie do tego, perfektyw sytuuje akcję w jej pierwotnie zamierzonym łańcuchu przyczynowym. W zakończeniu przedstawiono dane wskazujące na fakt, iż imperfektywa presupozycyjne w języku czeskim i chorwackim odzwierciedlają rozumienie akcji jako procesu.

show abstract

Differences between Russian and Czech in the Use of Aspect in Narrative Discourse and Factual Contexts

Cited by 7 publications

References 48 publications

Parallel Corpus Research and Target Language Representativeness: The Contrastive, Typological, and Translation Mining Traditions

Parallel Corpus Research and Target Language Representativeness: The Contrastive, Typological, and Translation Mining Traditions

The theory of argument formation: between kinds and properties

Does the Presuppositional Imperfective Exist in Russian (and Slavic)?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About