DOCSLIB.ORG

Language Portal Dutch/Frisian (Taalportaal Nederlands/Fries)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Language Portal Dutch/Frisian (Taalportaal Nederlands/Fries) Language Portal Dutch/Frisian (Taalportaal Nederlands/Fries) 1 Applicants and collaborators.......................................................................................1 2 Executive Summary......................................................................................................2 3 Key publications/activities applicants.........................................................................3 4 Research plan................................................................................................................4 4.1 The goal..........................................................................................................................4 4.1.1 Object..............................................................................................................................4 4.1.2 Target group....................................................................................................................6 4.1.3 Relation with other digital language resources...............................................................6 4.1.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................7 4.2 The minimal requirements ..............................................................................................7 4.3 Motivation.......................................................................................................................8 4.4 Why now?......................................................................................................................11 5 Work plan....................................................................................................................11 5.1 The grammar of Dutch..................................................................................................12 5.1.1 Main Track Dutch Syntax (supervisor: Hans Bennis) ..................................................12 5.1.2 Main Track Dutch Morphology (supervisor: Geert Booij)...........................................14 5.1.3 Main Track Dutch Phonology (supervisor: Geert Booij) .............................................15 5.1.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................16 5.2 The grammar of Frisian................................................................................................16 5.2.1 The relation between the Dutch and Frisian modules...................................................17 5.2.2 Main track Frisian Grammar (supervisor: Arjen Versloot) ..........................................18 5.2.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................19 5.3 Technical development of the infrastructure (supervisor: Carole Tiberius)................19 5.3.1 Delivery of the grammar resources...............................................................................20 5.3.2 Conversion and aggregation.........................................................................................20 5.3.3 Interoperability..............................................................................................................22 5.3.4 Editing Environment.....................................................................................................22 5.3.5 User interface................................................................................................................22 5.3.6 Archiving ......................................................................................................................23 5.4 Additional activities......................................................................................................24 5.5 Time table......................................................................................................................24 5.6 Organization Structure.................................................................................................25 6 Structural embedding of the Language Portal.........................................................26 7 Estimate of costs..........................................................................................................27 Appendix I: short biographical description of track supervisors 1 1 Applicants and collaborators (i) Applicants A. Prof.dr. H.J. Bennis B. Prof.dr. R.Salverda Meertens Institute (KNAW) Fryske Akademy Postbus 94264,1090 GG Amsterdam Postbus 54, 8900 AB Leeuwarden Phone: 020-462 8500 Phone: 058-2343040/21 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] C. Prof. dr. G.E. Booij D. Dr. J.C.T. Beeken Leiden University Institute for Dutch Lexicology (INL) Postbus 9515, 2300 RA Leiden Postbus 9515, 2300 RA Leiden Phone: 071-5272509 Phone: 071-5141648 E-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected] (ii) Track supervisors A. Prof.dr. N.F.M. Corver (University Utrecht) B Dr. J. Don (University of Amsterdam) C. Prof.dr. P. Fikkert (Radboud University Nijmegen) D. Dr. W. Haeseryn (Radboud University Nijmegen) E. Prof.dr. M. van Oostendorp (Meertens Institute/Leiden University/KNAW) F. Dr. C.P.A. Tiberius (Institute for Dutch Lexicology) G. Dr. A.P. Versloot (Fryske Akademy) (iii) Scientific Advisory Board A. Prof.dr. P.P.G. Boersma (University of Amsterdam) B. Prof.dr. J. De Caluwe (University of Gent/Taalunie) C. Prof.dr. M. den Dikken (City University New York) D. Prof.dr. M.B.H. Everaert (University of Utrecht) E. Prof.dr. L. Haegeman (University of Gent) F. Prof.dr. R.W.N.M. van Hout (Radboud University Nijmegen) G. Prof.dr. M. Hüning (Freie Universität Berlin) H. Prof.dr. Shimizu Makoto (Hokkaido University Graduate School, Faculty of Letters, Germanic Linguistics, Sapporo, Japan) I. Prof.dr. A.H. Neijt (Radboud University Nijmegen) J. Prof.dr. J. Pekelder (Université de Paris-Sorbonne/Univerzita Karlova, Prague) K. Prof.dr. H.C. van Riemsdijk (Tilburg University) L. Prof.dr. W. Vandeweghe (Hogeschool Gent/Kon. Ac. voor Ned. Taal- en Letterkunde) M. Prof.dr. W. Zonneveld (University of Utrecht) (iii) Technical Advisory Board A. Prof.dr. A.P.J. van den Bosch (University of Tilburg) B. Prof.dr. P.A.J.M. Coppen (Radboud University Nijmegen) C. Dr. P. Doorn (DANS) D. Dr. G.J.M. van Noord (University of Groningen) E. Prof.dr. J.E.J.M. Odijk (University of Utrecht) F. Dr. N.H.J. Oostdijk (Radboud University Nijmegen) G. Dr. M. Theune (Twente University) H. Drs. R. van Veenendaal (Institute voor Dutch Lexicology) 2 2 Executive Summary Het project “Taalportaal” richt zich op het ontwerp, de ontwikkeling en de implementatie van een virtueel taalinstituut, een digitale gedistribueerde bron van kennis over de grammaticale eigenschappen van het Nederlands en het Fries. Het Meertens Instituut treedt op als hoofdaanvrager, in samenwerking met de Universiteit Leiden, de Fryske Akademy en het Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie. Bij de feitelijke totstandkoming zijn vele binnen- en buitenuniversitaire instituten betrokken. Het Nederlands, de moedertaal van zo’n twintig miljoen mensen, en het Fries zijn niet alleen belangrijk als cultuurtaal maar ook als object van onderzoek: met name het onderzoek naar de grammatica van Nederlands is van doorslaggevende invloed geweest op allerlei aspecten van de taalkundige theorievorming. Het Taalportaal zal een zo compleet mogelijk beeld geven van de klankstructuur, de woordstructuur en de zinsstructuur van het Nederlands en het Fries. Voor de zinsstructuur of syntaxis zal het Taalportaal steunen op de elektronische versie van de 2e druk van de Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (ANS, 1997) en de nog ongepubliceerde Modern Grammar of Dutch (MGD), voor de woordstructuur of morfologie op het eerste deel van de ANS, The Morphology of Dutch (2002) van medeaanvrager Geert Booij en het Morfologisch Handboek van het Nederlands (1993) van De Haas en Trommelen, en voor de klankstructuur of fonologie op Geert Booij’s The Phonology of Dutch (1995). Ook voor het Fries ligt er al veel voorwerk. Gezien de grote taalkundige overeenkomsten tussen de twee talen, en conform de traditie in de frisistiek, zal de beschrijving van de Friese taalfeiten contrastief gebeuren en derhalve vooral nadruk leggen op de verschillen met het Nederlands. Daar waar het Nederlands en het Fries zich identiek gedragen zullen de beschrijvingen van de Nederlandse taalfeiten voor het Fries bewerkt worden. Technisch heeft het Taalportaal de vorm van een complexe XML-databank, die via een webbrowser geraadpleegd kan worden. Gedacht wordt aan een wikipedia-achtige omgeving met dit verschil dat de anarchie van Wikipedia en vergelijkbare projecten vermeden wordt, doordat alleen geautoriseerde deskundigen de teksten zullen mogen bewerken. Door maximale integratie en uitputtende dwarsverwijzingen zullen de scheidslijnen tussen de traditioneel onderscheiden taalkundige deelgebieden zo goed als onzichtbaar worden: een vraag over overgankelijke werkwoorden zal niet alleen syntactische informatie bieden, maar ook morfologische en fonologische. Op deze wijze kunnen bijvoorbeeld correlaties zichtbaar gemaakt worden die anders wellicht verborgen zouden blijven, zoals die tussen enerzijds het feit dat overgankelijke werkwoorden van het type eten wel, maar van het type weten niet in de lijdende vorm kunnen voorkomen (wel de soep werd door mij gegeten maar niet de weg werd door mij geweten) en anderzijds het feit dat er wel een bijvoeglijk naamwoord op –baar van eten, maar niet van weten gevormd kan worden (wel eetbaar
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phonological Recoverability in Dialects of Dutch
    Phonological recoverability in dialects of Dutch Marc van Oostendorp First draft, February 13, 2004 Comments welcome 1 Introduction One of the fundamental problems for constraint-based theories of phonology is the issue of opacity: a phonological process applies where it should not, or does not apply where it should, if we look at the phonological context on the surface. Since well-formedness constraints in a theory such as Optimal- ity Theory typically refer to surface structure only, it is a puzzle how to deal with such phenomena within this theory. Various solutions have been pro- posed, all of them necessarily requiring some level of abstraction. Most of these involve some mechanism to introduce an extra representational level; an example of this is Sympathy Theory (McCarthy, 1999), in which one of the non-winning candidate representations can still influence the form of the output because it does contain the relevant phonological context, and the ac- tual output form is bound to this candidate by faithfulness relations. This representation is abstract in the sense that it is not pronounced; but it can influence the shape of the surface form; the solution is highly reminiscent of derivational theories, in which the abstract representation is a separate step in the derivation. Leaving aside the question whether this level of abstractness is required for other cases, I argue that one class of cases of phonological opacity can be handled without stipulating an extra level of representation, but by taking into account the morphological structure of the forms in question. In par- ticular, deleted segments sometimes still seem to influence the surface rep- resentation of morphologically complex words, since without this influence a whole morpheme would be lost.
    [Show full text]
  • Syllable Structure in Esperanto As an Instantiation of Universal Phonology
    Esperantologio / Esperanto Studies 1 (1999), 52{80 Syllable structure in Esperanto as an instantiation of universal phonology Marc van Oostendorp he linguistic discipline of phonology is underrepresented within the field of Es- Tperanto studies.1 Most grammatical work concentrates on syntax and morphology, but the sound structure is ignored in many works on the grammatical structure of the language. A serious monograph discussing the most relevant aspects is yet to be written.2 One of the reasons for the relative lack of interest may be the fact that at first sight Esperanto does not have the type of phonological system that would excite pho- nologists. One of the official sixteen rules of Esperanto phonology (rule number 9, Kalocsay & Waringhien 1985:19) is: Every word is read aloud as it is written. This statement is of course rather informal. If we translate it into the terminology of modern phonology, we could say that phonological elements do not alternate or get deleted: the orthographic representation gives us underlying structure and surface structure at the same time. Underlying vowels and consonants stay the way they are in every phonological context. The rule (if seen as a rule guiding language planning, rather than a descriptive device) therefore had as an effect that Esperanto does not have any interesting phonological alternations. Its morphology is completely aggluti- native: there is no allomorphy, no fusion, and there are no assimilation or dissimilation rules. We sometimes find some discussion in the literature (Waringhien 1962, Wells 1978/1989) whether or not allophonic variation is permissible; e.g., whether or not n can be pronounced as a velar nasal in a word like banko `bank'.
    [Show full text]
  • Ifi (09) 4/2019
    1 vol. 3, no. 9 (4/2019) Published by the Center for Research and Documentation on Word Language Problems (CED) and the Esperantic Studies Foundation (ESF) Table of Contents 1. Message from the Editors ......................................................................................................................... 2 2. Recent publications: Books ....................................................................................................................... 2 3. Recent publications: Articles ..................................................................................................................... 4 4. Dissertations ............................................................................................................................................. 6 5. Obituary .................................................................................................................................................... 6 6. Coming events ........................................................................................................................................... 8 7. Research on Hector Hodler – and a question ........................................................................................... 9 8. Giuseppe Peano ...................................................................................................................................... 10 9. ILEI Meets ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Phonological Recoverability in Dialects of Dutch
    Phonological recoverability in dialects of Dutch Marc van Oostendorp 1 Introduction One of the fundamental problems for constraint-based theories of phonology is the issue of opacity: a phonological process applies where it should not, or does not apply where it should, if we look at the phonological context on the surface. Since well-formedness constraints in a theory such as Optimal- ity Theory typically refer to surface structure only, it is a puzzle how to deal with such phenomena within this theory. Various solutions have been pro- posed, all of them necessarily requiring some level of abstraction. Most of these involve some mechanism to introduce an extra representational level; an example of this is Sympathy Theory (McCarthy, 1999), in which one of the non-winning candidate representations can still influence the form of the output because it does contain the relevant phonological context, and the ac- tual output form is bound to this candidate by faithfulness relations. This representation is abstract in the sense that it is not pronounced; but it can influence the shape of the surface form; the solution is highly reminiscent of derivational theories, in which the abstract representation is a separate step in the derivation. Leaving aside the question whether this level of abstractness is required for other cases, I argue that one class of cases of phonological opacity can be handled without stipulating an extra level of representation, but by taking into account the morphological structure of the forms in question. In par- ticular, deleted segments sometimes still seem to influence the surface rep- resentation of morphologically complex words, since without this influence a whole morpheme would be lost.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theory of Faithfulness
    The Theory of Faithfulness Marc van Oostendorp Meertens Institute, Amsterdam June 15, 2004 Contents Contents 1 1 Introduction: Faithfulness with and without OT 2 1.1 A preliminary definition . 2 1.2 Faithfulness in SPE . 4 1.3 Restricting the abstractness of phonology . 8 1.4 Natural Generative Phonology . 10 2 Containment Theory 12 2.1 Containment and Invariance . 12 2.2 Lexicon Optimization . 15 2.3 Extreme unfaithfulness: The null parse and allomorphy . 19 3 Correspondence Theory 22 3.1 The Correspondence Relation and Constraints . 22 3.2 Special faithfulness violations: Metathesis . 25 3.3 Faithfulness in reduplication . 30 3.4 Distinctions between faithfulness and markedness . 32 4 Positional faithfulness 36 4.1 First position faithfulness . 36 4.2 Head position faithfulness . 39 4.3 Root position faithfulness . 41 1 2 Introduction: Faithfulness with and without OT 5 Output-output correspondence 43 5.1 Cyclic effects as transderivational faithfulness . 43 5.2 Cyclicity . 46 5.3 Cyclic representations . 49 5.4 Abandoning separate inputs . 50 6 Paradigms 55 6.1 Optimal Paradigms . 55 6.2 The first person singular: Insular Catalan vs. Dutch . 59 7 Further extensions of faithfulness theory 63 7.1 Sympathy Theory . 63 7.2 Sympathy Theory and allophony . 67 7.3 Serialism and Cumulativity . 69 7.4 Comparative Markedness . 73 8 Derivational Levels 76 8.1 Lexical Phonology . 76 8.2 Arguments for and against Lexical Phonology . 78 9 Coloured Containment 83 9.1 An Evaluation . 83 9.2 Morphological colouring . 85 9.3 Opacity and output representations . 90 10 Faithfulness in the interface with Morphology 93 10.1 Derived Environments .
    [Show full text]