Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:31:29.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling Intelligibility of Written Germanic Languages: Do We Need to Distinguish Between Orthographic Stem and Affix Variation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 December 2014

Wilbert Heeringa ,
Femke Swarte ,
Anja Schüppert  and
Charlotte Gooskens
Wilbert Heeringa*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
Femke Swarte*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
Anja Schüppert*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
Charlotte Gooskens*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
*
University of Groningen, Faculty of Arts, Applied Linguistics, P.O. Box 716, 9700AS Groningen, The Netherlands, [[email protected]], [[email protected]], [[email protected]], [[email protected]]
University of Groningen, Faculty of Arts, Applied Linguistics, P.O. Box 716, 9700AS Groningen, The Netherlands, [[email protected]], [[email protected]], [[email protected]], [[email protected]]
University of Groningen, Faculty of Arts, Applied Linguistics, P.O. Box 716, 9700AS Groningen, The Netherlands, [[email protected]], [[email protected]], [[email protected]], [[email protected]]
University of Groningen, Faculty of Arts, Applied Linguistics, P.O. Box 716, 9700AS Groningen, The Netherlands, [[email protected]], [[email protected]], [[email protected]], [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We measured orthographic differences between five Germanic languages. First, we tested the hypothesis that orthographic stem variation among languages does not correlate with orthographic variation in inflectional affixes. We found this hypothesis true when considering the aggregated stem and affix distances between the languages. We also correlated the stem and affix distances within the cognate pairs in each language pair. We found low correlations, the lowest of them being not significant. Second, we tested the hypothesis that orthographic stem variation among languages is larger than orthographic variation in inflectional affixes. This hypothesis was also found to be true. Orthographic distance is likely to be a potential predictor of written intelligibility, but our results suggest that when modeling written intelligibility, a distinction needs to be made between stem and affix distances.*

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 361 - 394
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baroni, Marco, Johannes, Matiasek, & Harald, Trost. 2002. Unsupervised discovery of morphologically related words based on orthographic and semantic similarity. Proceedings of the Workshop on Morphological and Phonological Learning of ACL/SIGPHON-2002, ed. by Maxwell, Mike, 48–57. East Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Introducing linguistic morphology. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Baugh, Albert C., & Thomas, Cable. 1978. History of the English language. 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bezooijen, Renée van, & Charlotte, Gooskens. 2005. How easy is it for speakers of Dutch to understand spoken and written Frisian and Afrikaans, and why? Linguistics in the Netherlands 22, ed. by Doetjes, Jenny & van de Weijer, Jeroen, 13–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bonnet, Eric, & Yves Van de, Peer. 2002. zt: a software tool for simple and partial Mantel tests. Journal of Statistical Software 7. 1–12. Available at http://www.jstatsoft.org/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourassa, Derrick C., & Rebecca, Treiman. 2008. Morphological constancy in spelling: A comparison of children with dyslexia and typically developing children. Dyslexia 14. 155–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiebke, Brockhaus, 1995. Final devoicing in the phonology of German. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2013. Historical linguistics. An introduction. 3rd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cronbach, Lee J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16. 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daan, Jo, & Dirk, Peter Blok. 1969. Van randstad tot landrand (Bijdragen en Mededelingen der Dialectencommissie van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam 37). Amsterdam: N.V. Noord-Hollandsche uitgevers maatschappij.Google Scholar
De Schutter, Georges, Boudewijn van den, Berg, Goeman, Ton, & Thera de, Jong. 2005. Morphological atlas of the Dutch dialects, vol. I. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Doetjes, Gerke, & Charlotte, Gooskens. 2009. Skriftsprogets rolle i den dansk-svenske talesprogsforståelse. Språk och Stil 19. 105–123.Google Scholar
Drewnowski, Adam, & Alice, F. Healy. 1980. Missing -ing in reading: Letter detection errors on word endings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19. 247–262.Google Scholar
Fernanda, Ferreira, & Henderson, John M.. 1991. Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 31. 725–745.Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol A., Sherley, E. Napps, & Laurie, B. Feldman. 1985. Relations among regular and irregular morphologically related words in the lexicon as revealed by repetition priming. Memory and Cognition 13. 241–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, Lynn, & Keith, Rayner. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14. 178–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goebl, Hans, with assistance of Wolf-Dieter Rase & Hilmar Pudlatz. 1982. Dialektometrie: Prinzipien und Methoden des Einsatzes der numerischen Taxonomie im Bereich der Dialektgeographie (Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkschriften 157). Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans, with assistance of Siegfried Selberherr, Wolf-Dieter Rase & Hilmar Pudlatz. 1984. Dialektometrische Studien. Anhand italoromanischer, rätoromanischer und galloromanischer Sprachmaterialien aus AIS und ALF (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 191, 192, 193). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans. 1993. Probleme und Methoden der Dialektometrie: Geolinguistik in globaler Perspektive. Proceedings of the International Congress of Dialectologists 1, ed. by Viereck, Wolfgang, 37–81. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Goeman, Ton, van Oostendorp, Marc van Reenen, Pieter, Oele, Koornwinder, van den Berg, Boudewijn, & van Reenen, Anke . 2009. Morphological atlas of the Dutch dialects, vol. II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A., & Anne, Cutler. 1988. Psycholinguistic factors in morphological asymmetry. Explaining language universals, ed. by Hawkins, John A., 280–317. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert. 2004. Measuring dialect pronunciation differences using Levenshtein distance. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert, Martijn, WielingBoudewijn van den, BergNerbonne, John 2009. A quantitative examination of variation in Dutch Low Saxon morphology. Low Saxon dialects across borders/Niedersächsiche dialekte über grenzen hinweg (ZDL-Beiheft 138), ed. by Lenz, Alexandra N., Gooskens, Charlotte, & Reker, Siemon, 195–216. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert, & Frans, Hinskens. 2014. Convergence between dialect varieties and dialect groups in the Dutch language area. Aggregating dialectology, typology, and register analysis: Linguistic variation in text and speech. (Linguae et Litterae: Publications of the School of Language and Literature, Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies 28), ed. by Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Wälchli, Bernhard, 26–52 and 452–453. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hilton, Nanna HaugCharlotte, Gooskens, & Anja, Schüppert. 2013. The influence of non-native morphosyntax on the intelligibility of a closely related language. Lingua 137. 1–18.Google Scholar
Inoue, Fumio. 1996. Computational dialectology (2). Area and Culture Studies 53. 115–134.Google Scholar
Jain, Anil K., & Dubes, Richard C.. 1988. Algorithms for clustering data. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Jarvella, Robert J., & Meijers, Guust. 1983. Recognizing morphemes in spoken words: Some evidence for a stem-organized mental lexicon. The process of language understanding, ed. by Jarvella, Robert J. & d'Arcais, Giovanni B. FloresChichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Joseph, Holly S. S. L., & Simon, P. Liversedge. 2013. Children's and adults’ online processing of syntactically ambiguous sentences during reading. PLoS ONE 8. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruskal, Joseph B. 1999. An overview of sequence comparison. Time warps, string edits, and macromolecules. The theory and practice of sequence comparison, ed. by Sankoff, David & Kruskal, Joseph B., 1–44. 2nd edn. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Vladimir, Levenshtein, 1966. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Cybernetics and Control Theory 10. 707–710.Google Scholar
Nathan, Mantel, 1967. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research 27. 209–220.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1991. Morphology. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hugo van der, Molen, & Morton, John. 1979. Remembering plurals: Unit of coding and form of coding during serial recall. Cognition 7. 35–47.Google Scholar
Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric theory. 2nd edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lee, Osterhout, & Holcomb, Phillip J.. 1992. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 31. 785–780.Google Scholar
Jean, Séguy, 1971. La relation entre la distance spatiale et la distance lexicale. Revue de Linguistique Romane 35. 335–357.Google Scholar
Séguy, Jean. 1973. La dialectométrie dans l'Atlas linguistique de la Gascogne. Revue de Linguistique Romane 37. 1–24.Google Scholar
Smith, Philip T., & Sterling, Christopher M.. 1982. Factors affecting the perceived morphological structure of written words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 21. 704–721.Google Scholar
Sokal, Robert R., & Rohlf, F. James. 1962. The comparison of dendrograms by objective methods. Taxon 11. 33–40.Google Scholar
Stanners, Robert F., Neiser, James J., Hernon, William P., & Hall, Roger. 1979. Memory representation for morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 399–412.Google Scholar
Venezky, Richard L. 2004. In search of the perfect orthography. Written Language and Literacy 7. 139–163.Google Scholar
Zhiyong, Zhang, & Yuan, Ke-Hai. 2013. Robust Cronbach's alpha with missing and non-normal data. Software package description in R.Google Scholar
Nicholas, Zulu, Botha, Gerrit, & Barnard, Etienne. 2008. Orthographic measures of language distances between the official South African languages. Literator 29. 185–204.Google Scholar