A cross dialectal view of the Arabic dative alternation

This paper is concerned with the syntax of ditransitive verbs in Arabic.We concentrate on the vernaculars, focussing in particular on three geographically spread dialects: Egyptian Cairene Arabic, the dominant vernacular in Egypt, Hijazi Arabic, spoken in Western Saudi Arabia and Maltese, a mixed language with a Magrebi/Siculo-Arabic stratum. We show that all three exhibit an alternation (the dative alternation) between a ditransitive ('double object') construction and a corresponding prepositional dative construction, and outline a number of differences between these constructions in the different varieties of Arabic. We consider the distribution of verbs exhibiting the dative alternation in the light of Ryding's (2011) observations concerning Modern Standard Arabic

Representation of the verb's argument-structure in the human brain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A verb's argument structure defines the number and relationships of participants needed for a complete event. One-argument (intransitive) verbs require only a subject to make a complete sentence, while two- and three-argument verbs (transitives and ditransitives) normally take direct and indirect objects. Cortical responses to verbs embedded into sentences (correct or with syntactic violations) indicate the processing of the verb's argument structure in the human brain. The two experiments of the present study examined whether and how this processing is reflected in distinct spatio-temporal cortical response patterns to isolated verbs and/or verbs presented in minimal context.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The magnetoencephalogram was recorded while 22 native German-speaking adults saw 130 German verbs, presented one at a time for 150 ms each in experiment 1. Verb-evoked electromagnetic responses at 250 – 300 ms after stimulus onset, analyzed in source space, were higher in the left middle temporal gyrus for verbs that take only one argument, relative to two- and three-argument verbs. In experiment 2, the same verbs (presented in different order) were preceded by a proper name specifying the subject of the verb. This produced additional activation between 350 and 450 ms in or near the left inferior frontal gyrus, activity being larger and peaking earlier for one-argument verbs that required no further arguments to form a complete sentence.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Localization of sources of activity suggests that the activation in temporal and frontal regions varies with the degree by which representations of an event as a part of the verbs' semantics are completed during parsing.</p

Nominalization and Alternations in Biomedical Language

Background: This paper presents data on alternations in the argument structure of common domain-specific verbs and their associated verbal nominalizations in the PennBioIE corpus. Alternation is the term in theoretical linguistics for variations in the surface syntactic form of verbs, e.g. the different forms of stimulate in FSH stimulates follicular development and follicular development is stimulated by FSH. The data is used to assess the implications of alternations for biomedical text mining systems and to test the fit of the sublanguage model to biomedical texts. Methodology/Principal Findings: We examined 1,872 tokens of the ten most common domain-specific verbs or their zerorelated nouns in the PennBioIE corpus and labelled them for the presence or absence of three alternations. We then annotated the arguments of 746 tokens of the nominalizations related to these verbs and counted alternations related to the presence or absence of arguments and to the syntactic position of non-absent arguments. We found that alternations are quite common both for verbs and for nominalizations. We also found a previously undescribed alternation involving an adjectival present participle. Conclusions/Significance: We found that even in this semantically restricted domain, alternations are quite common, and alternations involving nominalizations are exceptionally diverse. Nonetheless, the sublanguage model applies to biomedica

Our Creolized Tongues

It is often assumed that creole languages represent ‘exceptional’ language development in which a contact language or a variety largely spoken by late L2 learners nativizes and becomes the main language of a community. It is therefore not uncommon that scholars of contact languages or revitalized languages (e.g., Hebrew) ask whether such languages are creoles or not. The common assumption is that so-called creoles exhibit certain specific linguistic features which distinguish them from other non-creolized languages, and which could be used as a yardstick to evaluate the status of other languages as creoles. But, what if any given language is a creolized form of a pre-existing language spoken by previous generations? In this paper, I argue that language acquisition always happens in a situation of contact comparable to creole contexts, in which learners are faced with heterogeneous inputs and recombine competing linguistic features into new linguistic items. Under this view, all natural languages involve a hybrid grammar. I further discuss how recombination leads to linguistic variation both at the learner’s and population level