PresentationPDF Available

Infixes, clicks, and the Devil Scandinavian interjections from a Construction Grammar perspective

Presentation

Infixes, clicks, and the Devil Scandinavian interjections from a Construction Grammar perspective

Abstract

In traditional Scandinavian grammaticography, interjections are rather loosely defined as a word class and often understood as lying on the fringe of the language system, sometimes being described as para-linguistic phenomena rather than full-fledged linguistic units (e.g. Hansen & Heltoft 2011: vol. 1, 214; Teleman, Hellberg & Andersson 1999: vol. 2, 761–768). The main reason is that, while constituting a very heterogeneous group, interjections typically share some kind of exceptional formal features as compared to more prototypical word classes, a property they have in common with ideophones and other cases of sound symbolism (Dingemanse 2017). For example, they may occur independently of clausal structures (extraclausally or parenthetically) and have unusual phonological forms (such as Swedish [|] expressing, inter alia, indignation; Engstrand 2012: 71). On the other hand, Scandinavian interjections do have formal properties that can be described in terms of well-established grammatical concepts and terminology. Examples are the morphological compositionality of many interjections (as in Danish hovsa ‘whoops’ < hov ‘whoops’ + -sa [colloquial marker]), their involvement in productive morphological processes (such as suffixation by Danish -da [colloquial marker] in uhada, nåda, øvda, all expressing different shades of surprise as well as additional meanings) and the fact that some interjections have an argument structure (e.g. Danish skål for NP ‘here’s to NP [toasting]’). However, the morphological or syntactic processes found in interjections often differ from those used in other word classes. For example, Swedish interjections may be formed productively by infixation (as in jaha ‘ah, yes’ < ja ‘yes’ + -h- ‘understanding, surprise’) or on the basis of phonological schemas (such as Swedish ˈfa-X ‘Devil (swearing)’), a strategy employed primarily for purposes of taboo avoidance (Stroh-Wollin 2008: 105–107). This talk approaches the grammar of Scandinavian interjections from a usage-based Construction Grammar perspective (Goldberg 2013), which seems well-suited for overcoming the traditionally exceptionalist view on interjections. In line with basic constructionist assumptions, it is claimed that Scandinavian interjections can be analysed in terms of constructions (i.e. form-meaning pairs) exhibiting different degrees of schematicity, thus bridging the continuum between more and less exceptional formal structures by using the same analytical devices. While lexical schematicity is widely used in Construction Grammar analyses across the board, this talk argues that it is crucial to also take the importance of phonological schemas into account (as proposed for a range of different phenomena by Höder 2014: 205–215). Drawing on earlier research on, amongst other things, the cognitive reality of phonaesthemes (Bergen 2004), it is claimed that phonological schematicity is needed in order to arrive at a cognitively realistic constructional representation of interjectional form as well as the organization of interjections into constructional networks.
Infixes, clicks, and the Devil
Scandinavian interjections from a
Construction Grammar perspective
Steffen Höder (Kiel)
Preliminaries | Argument overview
2
1. Traditionally, INTJs have been treated as linguistic misfits in
(Scandinavian) grammaticography
… what with odd phonology, syntactic independence and the like.
2. However, even seemingly odd properties can be described in
perfectly regular terms
…though at times unusual from a given language’s perspective.
3. CxG has made a virtue of de-exceptionalizing the linguistic
‘periphery’
… based on the NYNY Principle: what makes it there will make it anywhere.
4. Applying CxG to INTJs allows for an integrative approach, but also
makes clear the need to include schematic units
… such as morphological or phonological schemas.
5. Evidence for phonological schemas comes from corpus studies
among other things.
Preliminaries | CxG perspective
Key ideas in usage-based CxG
(Goldberg 2006, 2019, Hilpert 2019, Diessel 2015, …; Höder 2018)
constructions as learned form-function pairs
cognitively entrenched units
representation of speakers’ linguistic knowledge in toto
constructional networks
schematicity continuum
constructions as language/community-specific
(Croft 2013: 212: CxG as framework-free grammar sensu Haspelmath 2010)
3
schematicity
kʰafːə] ‘coffee’
BITA
, i gräset ‘bite the dust’
VERB
-ar present
...
SUBJ¹ SA²* Vfin³subordinate clause
What is (or isn’t) an interjection?
Traditional exceptionalist view
“[Interjections are defined] in negative terms on account of their phonological
marginality, their nonparticipation in morphological processes and their
syntactic autonomy(workshop abstract)
4
What is (or isn’t) an interjection?
Traditional exceptionalist view
“[Interjections are defined] in negative terms on account of their phonological
marginality, their nonparticipation in morphological processes and their
syntactic autonomy(workshop abstract)
More differentiated view in more recent grammaticography
“Even sounds which normally are not used in speech, such as clicks and
groans, can be conventionalized to some degree. However, the border
between interjections and non-verbal communication is fuzzy.” (SAG
II.12.§1)
“Interjections are sometimes considered para-linguistic phenomena. This
implies (among other things) a lack of syntax, i.e. that there are no
restrictions on their occurrence. This view is wrong […]” (GDS IIA.§17, note p.
214)
corpus-based lexicography (e.g. Karp, Ordbog over Dansk Talesprog)
4
What is (or isn’t) an interjection?
5
loosely defined word class
(mostly ex negativo)
peripheral status
functionally heterogeneous group
formal exceptionalism
syntactic autonomy
unusual phonology
What is (or isn’t) an interjection?
6
loosely defined word class
(mostly ex negativo)
peripheral status
functionally heterogeneous group
formal exceptionalism
syntactic autonomy
unusual phonology
on the fringe of the linguistic system,
(almost) para-linguistic phenomena
often including onomatopoeia
Da pst ‘hush’
kykliky ‘cock-a-doodle-doo’
What is (or isn’t) an interjection?
7
loosely defined word class
(mostly ex negativo)
peripheral status
functionally heterogeneous group
formal exceptionalism
syntactic autonomy
unusual phonology
discourse markers, response
particles, emotives, commands, …
Sw tjena ‘hi’
ja ‘yes’
usch discomfort
mittåt self-repair (military)
prosit ‘bless you’
fan ‘damn’
What is (or isn’t) an interjection?
8
loosely defined word class
(mostly ex negativo)
peripheral status
functionally heterogeneous group
formal exceptionalism
syntactic autonomy
unusual phonology
extraclausality
Da øv! ‘ugh’
hov, hvad skete der?
‘oops, what happened?’
What is (or isn’t) an interjection?
9
loosely defined word class
(mostly ex negativo)
peripheral status
functionally heterogeneous group
formal exceptionalism
syntactic autonomy
unusual phonology
odd phonetics
non-phonemic sounds
(Höder 2014: 207)
Sw [|] indignation
ptro [ʙu]horse command
uncommon phonotactics
Da mm [mːː] hearer signal
bvadr [ˈb̥ð̞ˀɐ]disgust
similar to ideophones (and
other types of sound symbolism)
In constructional terms | Working definition
Interjections as speech acts
“[An interjection is a codified signal […], that is, a perceivable signal a sound
sequence in the speech modality, and a sequence of graphemes in the written
modality which is linked in a stable way, in the minds of the speakers of a
language, to the meaning of a speech act […].” (Poggi 2009: 171)
10
In constructional terms | Working definition
Interjections as speech acts
“[An interjection is a codified signal […], that is, a perceivable signal a sound
sequence in the speech modality, and a sequence of graphemes in the written
modality which is linked in a stable way, in the minds of the speakers of a
language, to the meaning of a speech act […].” (Poggi 2009: 171)
What does (or doesn’t) that imply?
10
In constructional terms | Working definition
Interjections as speech acts
[An interjection is a codified signal [], that is, a perceivable signal a sound
sequence in the speech modality, and a sequence of graphemes in the written
modality which is linked in a stable way, in the minds of the speakers of a
language, to the meaning of a speech act [].(Poggi 2009: 171)
What does (or doesnt) that imply?
10
+constructional
INTJ
s are form-meaning pairs
+extraclausal
INTJ
occur independently of verbs and verbal constructions
(which, in Scandinavian, otherwise are used to encode speech acts)
±
compositional
INTJ
may or may not be morphologically complex
±
arguments
INTJ
may or may not have an argument structure
±
schematic
how strictly
should we read “sound/letter sequences”?
In constructional terms | Working definition
Interjections as speech acts
“[An interjection is a codified signal […], that is, a perceivable signal a sound
sequence in the speech modality, and a sequence of graphemes in the written
modality which is linked in a stable way, in the minds of the speakers of a
language, to the meaning of a speech act […].” (Poggi 2009: 171)
What does (or doesn’t) that imply?
10
+constructional
INTJ
s are form-meaning pairs
+extraclausal
INTJ
occur independently of verbs and verbal constructions
(which, in Scandinavian, otherwise are used to encode speech acts)
±
compositional
INTJ
may or may not be morphologically complex
±
arguments
INTJ
may or may not have an argument structure
±
schematic
how strictly
should we read “sound/letter sequences”?
?
In constructional terms | Extraclausality
11
In constructional terms | Extraclausality
extraclausality ≠ lack of outer syntax
INTJs occur extraclausally, but are subject to syntactic as well as discourse-
related restrictions
(Brône & Zima 2014, Imo 2015, ...; cf. SAG IV.39.§5)
11
In constructional terms | Extraclausality
extraclausality ≠ lack of outer syntax
INTJs occur extraclausally, but are subject to syntactic as well as discourse-
related restrictions
(Brône & Zima 2014, Imo 2015, ...; cf. SAG IV.39.§5)
examples
attention-getters are discourse-initial
Da hallo! ‘hello there!’
response particles are utterance-initial, but can be combined with and then
follow conjunctions
Sw och ja, det gör vi
and yes that do we
nej men hej
no but hello
men vafan
but what-the-devil
11
In constructional terms | Extraclausality
extraclausality lack of outer syntax
INTJs occur extraclausally, but are subject to syntactic as well as discourse-
related restrictions
(Brône & Zima 2014, Imo 2015, ...; cf. SAG IV.39.§5)
examples
attention-getters are discourse-initial
Da hallo! hello there!
response particles are utterance-initial, but can be combined with and then
follow conjunctions
Sw och ja, det gör vi
and yes that do we
nej men hej
no but hello
men vafan
but what-the-devil
11
possible formalization
[(CONJ¹* INTJ² CLAUSE³* …)υ]
In constructional terms | Arguments
12
In constructional terms | Arguments
extraclausality ≠ lack of inner (phrasal) syntax
while many INTJs occur on their own, some take arguments
but maximally monovalent
12
In constructional terms | Arguments
extraclausality ≠ lack of inner (phrasal) syntax
while many INTJs occur on their own, some take arguments
but maximally monovalent
examples
[INTJ NPcase:obl;ref:i emotive evaluation of i]
Sw stackars den lille mannen
poor DEF.U.SG little-DEF.MALE.SG man-DEF.U.SG
[INTJ PREP NPcase:obl;ref:i speech act relating to participant i]
Sw hej dig
hello on 2SG.OBL
tack för hjälpen
thanks for help-DEF.U.SG
Da skål for dronningen
cheers for queen-DEF.U.SG
12
In constructional terms | Compositionality
13
In constructional terms | Compositionality
while many INTJs are morphologically simple, many are complex
no clear boundary between morphological suffixation and cliticisation, even
though the p-word is rather well-defined in Scandinavian (Haspelmath 2011)
13
In constructional terms | Compositionality
while many INTJs are morphologically simple, many are complex
no clear boundary between morphological suffixation and cliticisation, even
though the p-word is rather well-defined in Scandinavian (Haspelmath 2011)
predominantly suffixation (SAG II.12.§§11, 14)
suffixes as INTJ markers (?)
lexicalized [INTJ-san]
Sw hoppsan hejsan jajamänsan
oops-INTJ hello-INTJ oh.yes-INTJ
productive [INTJ-da]
Da uhada nåda øvda
phew-INTJ aha.well-INTJ ugh-INTJ
13
In constructional terms | Compositionality
but also morphological strategies that are not used elsewhere in
Scandinavian
infixation or (rather) partial reduplication
[INTJ + C*VihViC* response particle, surprise/emphasis]
14
proposition
+agree
agree
positive
ja
nej
negative
nej
jo
In constructional terms | Compositionality
but also morphological strategies that are not used elsewhere in
Scandinavian
infixation or (rather) partial reduplication
[INTJ + C*VihViC* response particle, surprise/emphasis]
marginally productive in secondary response particles
nja > njaha, njo > njoho, tja > tjaha, jep > jehep, …
15
proposition
+agree
agree
positive
ja
ha
ne
hej
negative
ne
hej
jo
ho
In constructional terms | Networks
[INTJ-] [INTJ-san] [INTJ PREP NPobl]
[oj]
[INTJ]
oj ojdå ojsan oj på dig
[ojdå](?)[ojsan]
[oj surprise]
16
In constructional terms | Schematicity
but also morphological strategies that are not used elsewhere in
Scandinavian
infixation or (rather) partial reduplication
[INTJ + C*VihViC* response particle, surprise/emphasis]
marginally productive in secondary response particles
nja > njaha, njo > njoho, tja > tjaha, jep > jehep, …
17
proposition
+agree
agree
positive
ja
ha
ne
hej
negative
ne
hej
jo
ho
The schematicity issue
“[An interjection is a codified signal […], that is, a perceivable signal – a sound
sequence in the speech modality, and a sequence of graphemes in the written
modality which is linked in a stable way, in the minds of the speakers of a
language, to the meaning of a speech act […].” (Poggi 2009: 171)
How strictly should we read “sound/letter sequences”?
In constructional terms | Schematicity
INTJs can be analysed as constructions with different degrees of
schematicity
schematicity
kʰafːə]
BITA
, i gräset
VERB
-ar
...
SUBJ¹ SA²* Vfin³
18
In constructional terms | Schematicity
INTJs can be analysed as constructions with different degrees of
schematicity
schematicity
[
²kʰafːə]
BITA
, i gräset
VERB
-ar
...
SUBJ¹ SA²* Vfin³
schematicity
[|]
oj
INTJ
-san
INTJ
+ C*VihViC*
INTJ
PREP NPobl
18
In constructional terms | Schematicity
INTJs can be analysed as constructions with different degrees of
schematicity
schematicity
kʰafːə]
BITA
, i gräset
VERB
-ar
...
SUBJ¹ SA²* Vfin³
schematicity
[|]
oj
INTJ
-san
INTJ
+ C*VihViC*
INTJ
PREP NPobl
phonological schematicity
18
Phonological schemas | Background
19
above word level
(Höder 2014)
(Riad 2015)
(Eklund 2008)
below word level
-concatenative morphology
Bybee & Moder 1983, Davis & Tsujimura 2018)
(Höder 2018, forthc.)
(Abelin 1999, Bergen 2004)
Phonological schemas | Background
19
above word level
(Höder 2014)
(Riad 2015)
(Eklund 2008)
below word level
-concatenative morphology
Bybee & Moder 1983, Davis & Tsujimura 2018)
(Höder 2018, forthc.)
(Abelin 1999, Bergen 2004)
e.g. gl-‘vision’
sn-‘nose/mouth’
Phonological schemas | Background
19
above word level
(Höder 2014)
(Riad 2015)
(Eklund 2008)
below word level
-concatenative morphology
Bybee & Moder 1983, Davis & Tsujimura 2018)
(Höder 2018, forthc.)
(Abelin 1999, Bergen 2004)
e.g. gl-‘vision’
sn-‘nose/mouth’
possible formalization
[(gl-…)ω‘vision’]
Phonological schemas | Background
19
above word level
(Höder 2014)
(Riad 2015)
(Eklund 2008)
below word level
-concatenative morphology
Bybee & Moder 1983, Davis & Tsujimura 2018)
(Höder 2018, forthc.)
(Abelin 1999, Bergen 2004)
e.g. gl-‘vision’
sn-‘nose/mouth’
possible formalization
[(gl-…)ω‘vision’]
and swear words (Höder in prep.)
Phonological schemas | Swear words
20
Phonological schemas | Swear words
high number of INTJs are derived from religious swear words, including
formations originally related to taboo-avoiding strategies
(Stroh-Wollin 2008, Teleman 1987, cf. Hoeksema 2019)
20
Phonological schemas | Swear words
high number of INTJs are derived from religious swear words, including
formations originally related to taboo-avoiding strategies
(Stroh-Wollin 2008, Teleman 1987, cf. Hoeksema 2019)
20
religious
swear word
fan
‘damn < Satan’
helvete
‘damn < hell’
jävla(r)
‘damn < devils’
taboo
-avoiding variant
fasen
helsicke
jäkla(r)
fasingen
helskota
fanken
Phonological schemas | Swear words
high number of INTJs are derived from religious swear words, including
formations originally related to taboo-avoiding strategies
(Stroh-Wollin 2008, Teleman 1987, cf. Hoeksema 2019)
20
religious
swear word
fan
‘damn < Satan’
helvete
‘damn < hell’
jävla(r)
‘damn < devils’
taboo
-avoiding variant
fasen
helsicke
jäkla(r)
fasingen
helskota
fanken
schema
[
ˈfa__]ω
[
ˈhel__σσ]ω
[
ˈ__CCa(r)]ω
Phonological schemas | Swear words
high number of INTJs are derived from religious swear words, including
formations originally related to taboo-avoiding strategies
(Stroh-Wollin 2008, Teleman 1987, cf. Hoeksema 2019)
20
religious
swear word
fan
‘damn < Satan’
helvete
‘damn < hell’
jävla(r)
‘damn < devils’
taboo
-avoiding variant
fasen
helsicke
jäkla(r)
fasingen
helskota
fanken
schema
[
ˈfa__]ω
[
ˈhel__σσ]ω
[
ˈ__CCa(r)]ω
productive schemas? corpus analysis
Phonological schemas | Swear words
high number of INTJs are derived from religious swear words, including
formations originally related to taboo-avoiding strategies
(Stroh-Wollin 2008, Teleman 1987, cf. Hoeksema 2019)
20
religious
swear word
fan
‘damn < Satan’
helvete
‘damn < hell’
jävla(r)
‘damn < devils’
taboo
-avoiding variant
fasen
helsicke
jäkla(r)
fasingen
helskota
fanken
schema
[
ˈfa__]ω
[
ˈhel__σσ]ω
[
ˈ__CCa(r)]ω
identifiable
INTJ use
[
fy ˈfa__]ω
productive schemas? corpus analysis
Phonological schemas | Swear words
21
corpus search in Swedish reference corpora (Korp)
(spraakbanken.gu.se/korp, as of 2017-10-25)
informal texts
modern fiction, social media, newspapers
144 corpora, 9.23G words
operationalization
CQP string
[word = "fy"] [word = "[f][a][a-zäöå]+\b"]
corrected data (graphic variation)
87 types, 119,539 tokens (13.0 TPM)
1,374 tokens per type
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Swear words and taboo-avoiding variants
22
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Swear words and taboo-avoiding variants
22
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
fy-fan fy-fasen fy-farao fy-fasiken fy-fanken fy-fabian fy-fa…
token freq (tpm)
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Swear words and taboo-avoiding variants
22
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
fy-fan fy-fasen fy-farao fy-fasiken fy-fanken fy-fabian fy-fa…
token freq (tpm)
tpm > .01
n = 119,214
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Swear words and taboo-avoiding variants
22
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
fy-fan fy-fasen fy-farao fy-fasiken fy-fanken fy-fabian fy-fa…
token freq (tpm)
tpm > .01
n = 119,214
tpm < .01
Σtpm < .01
n = 325
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Swear words and taboo-avoiding variants
22
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
fy-fan fy-fasen fy-farao fy-fasiken fy-fanken fy-fabian fy-fa…
token freq (tpm)
tpm > .01
n = 119,214
tpm < .01
Σtpm < .01
n = 325
taboo-avoiding variants
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Taboo-avoiding variants: frequent and less frequent types
23
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Taboo-avoiding variants: frequent and less frequent types
23
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
fy-fasen fy-farao fy-fasiken fy-fanken fy-fabian fy-fa…
token freq (tpm)
20.4 % 18.1 %
6.0 % 5.9 % 2.5 %
47.1 %
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Taboo-avoiding variants: frequent and less frequent types
23
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
fy-fasen fy-farao fy-fasiken fy-fanken fy-fabian fy-fa…
token freq (tpm)
20.4 % 18.1 %
6.0 % 5.9 % 2.5 %
infrequent types
47.1 %
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Taboo-avoiding variants: frequent and less frequent types
23
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
fy-fasen fy-farao fy-fasiken fy-fanken fy-fabian fy-fa…
token freq (tpm)
20.4 % 18.1 %
6.0 % 5.9 % 2.5 %
infrequent types
47.1 %
fy faderullan (27)
fy fagerlund (20)
fy fanders (8)
fy fanta (5)
fy fabylon (1)
fy fakta (1)
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Taboo-avoiding variants: frequent and less frequent types
23
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
fy-fasen fy-farao fy-fasiken fy-fanken fy-fabian fy-fa
token freq (tpm)
20.4 % 18.1 %
6.0 % 5.9 % 2.5 %
infrequent types
47.1 %
fy faderullan (27)
fy fagerlund (20)
fy fanders (8)
fy fanta (5)
fy fabylon (1)
fy fakta (1)
86 types
n = 12,989
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Entrenched types vs. productive use of schema
24
type
n
tpm
entrenchment
fy
fan
106,611
11.55
schema
productivity
fy
fasen
6,089
.66
fy
farao
2,635
.29
fy
fasiken
2,342
.25
fy
fanken
770
.08
fy
fabian
767
.08
fy faderullan
27
< .01
fy
fagerlund
20
< .01
fy
fanders
8
< .01
fy
fanta
5
< .01
fy
fabylon
1
< .01
fy
fakta
1
< .01
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Entrenched types vs. productive use of schema
24
type
n
tpm
entrenchment
fy
fan
106,611
11.55
schema
productivity
fy
fasen
6,089
.66
fy
farao
2,635
.29
fy
fasiken
2,342
.25
fy
fanken
770
.08
fy
fabian
767
.08
fy faderullan
27
< .01
fy
fagerlund
20
< .01
fy
fanders
8
< .01
fy
fanta
5
< .01
fy
fabylon
1
< .01
fy
fakta
1
< .01
lexicalized
variants
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Entrenched types vs. productive use of schema
24
type
n
tpm
entrenchment
fy
fan
106,611
11.55
schema
productivity
fy
fasen
6,089
.66
fy
farao
2,635
.29
fy
fasiken
2,342
.25
fy
fanken
770
.08
fy
fabian
767
.08
fy faderullan
27
< .01
fy
fagerlund
20
< .01
fy
fanders
8
< .01
fy
fanta
5
< .01
fy
fabylon
1
< .01
fy
fakta
1
< .01
lexicalized
variants
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Entrenched types vs. productive use of schema
24
type
n
tpm
entrenchment
fy
fan
106,611
11.55
schema
productivity
fy
fasen
6,089
.66
fy
farao
2,635
.29
fy
fasiken
2,342
.25
fy
fanken
770
.08
fy
fabian
767
.08
fy faderullan
27
< .01
fy
fagerlund
20
< .01
fy
fanders
8
< .01
fy
fanta
5
< .01
fy
fabylon
1
< .01
fy
fakta
1
< .01
frequent
types lexicalized
variants
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Entrenched types vs. productive use of schema
24
type
n
tpm
entrenchment
fy
fan
106,611
11.55
schema
productivity
fy
fasen
6,089
.66
fy
farao
2,635
.29
fy
fasiken
2,342
.25
fy
fanken
770
.08
fy
fabian
767
.08
fy faderullan
27
< .01
fy
fagerlund
20
< .01
fy
fanders
8
< .01
fy
fanta
5
< .01
fy
fabylon
1
< .01
fy
fakta
1
< .01
frequent
types
infrequent
types
lexicalized
variants
Phonological schemas | Swear words
Entrenched types vs. productive use of schema
24
type
n
tpm
entrenchment
fy
fan
106,611
11.55
schema
productivity
fy
fasen
6,089
.66
fy
farao
2,635
.29
fy
fasiken
2,342
.25
fy
fanken
770
.08
fy
fabian
767
.08
fy faderullan
27
< .01
fy
fagerlund
20
< .01
fy
fanders
8
< .01
fy
fanta
5
< .01
fy
fabylon
1
< .01
fy
fakta
1
< .01
frequent
types
infrequent
types
hapaxes
lexicalized
variants
in total:
86 types
n = 12,989
Conclusions
25
Conclusions
While Scandinavian INTJs do exhibit formal features that deviate from
more prototypical words, they can be analysed as constructions
without any special analytical machinery needed.
25
Conclusions
While Scandinavian INTJs do exhibit formal features that deviate from
more prototypical words, they can be analysed as constructions
without any special analytical machinery needed.
INTJs exhibit different degrees of schematicity, allowing for
morphological compositionality and argument structures to be
modelled in the same way as with other types of elements.
25
Conclusions
While Scandinavian INTJs do exhibit formal features that deviate from
more prototypical words, they can be analysed as constructions
without any special analytical machinery needed.
INTJs exhibit different degrees of schematicity, allowing for
morphological compositionality and argument structures to be
modelled in the same way as with other types of elements.
In addition to lexical slots, some INTJ schemas require phonological
slots as well. This ties in with other recent work of phonological
schematicity from a usage-based (construction grammar)
perspective.
25
26
men tack så jäkla mycket för uppmärksamheten.
INTJ SUBJN [INTJ PREP NP]
taboo-avoiding (jävla)
[ˈ__CCa(r)]ω
no but thanks so damn much for attention-DEF

Supplementary resource (1)

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.