Tolerance Data 2012 Greekl: How to Use the Best Automotive Software

A comparison between Greek and Spanish related research suggests that Greek studies (Dimitriadis 1996; Miltsakaki 2007; Prentza & Tsimpli 2012; Mastropavlou et al. 2014; Kaltsa et al. 2015; Papadopoulou et al. 2015) are relatively consistent in their findings, despite methodological heterogeneity, as compared to Spanish studies (Alonso-Ovalle et al. 2002; Montrul 2004a; Montrul & Rodríguez Louro 2006; Callahan et al. 2007; Filiaci 2011; Gelormini-Lezama & Almor 2011; Keating et al. 2011; Jegerski et al. 2011; Iverson 2012; Shin & Cairns 2012; Filiaci et al. 2013; Chamorro et al. 2015; Montrul & Sánchez-Walker 2015; Clements & Domínguez 2016; Montrul 2016). NS favour assignment with subject antecedents in most Greek and Spanish studies, whereas OSP appear to differ in the two languages, with the Spanish OSP evidently being weaker (more ambiguous) than the Greek OSP. Evidence for Spanish subject distribution and AR has not been conclusive so far since different studies have examined different varieties of Spanish and there is considerable variation in OSP use across varieties (e.g. Mayol 2012). Difference in data elicitation methods is also a contributing factor to the varying results. Nonetheless, it seems that the Spanish OSP does not always comply with the discourse feature of salience/prominence to the same degree as in Greek, while the tendency of NS co-referring to subject antecedents appears to be a commonality in the two languages. This leads to the prediction that in comparing Greek and Spanish stronger differences are expected in the distribution of OSP and fewer or no differences in the distribution and interpretation of NS.

Production data were collected using the two picture story description tasks by Hickmann (2003), the Horse Story and the Cat Story, consisting of sequences of successive pictures that form stories with animal characters. Such production data tend to be representative of authentic language use. The method has been extensively employed in related research on subject expression and reference (e.g. Silva-Corvalán 1994; Hendriks 2003; Montrul 2004a; 2016; Tsimpli & Sorace 2006; Belletti et al. 2007; Arnold et al. 2009; Iverson 2012; Leclercq & Lenart 2013; Pinto 2013; 2014; Tsimpli et al. 2014; Hendriks et al. 2014; Andreou 2015; Montrul & Sánchez-Walker 2015).

Tolerance Data 2012 Greekl

Download File: https://moryoapyu.blogspot.com/?download=2vDDw2

The relevant linguistic variables of the annotation of the narratives for the purposes of data analysis were: Category of Subject (NS, LS, OSP), Discourse Value (TS, TC, Focus) and Ambiguity. Subject-headed relative clauses were not considered in the analyses because of their dependence on the head of the noun phrase (see e.g. Dimitriadis 1996; Montrul & Rodríguez Louro 2006; Shin 2012; 2016). The contents of the narratives triggered mostly third-person animate subjects in singular. Instances of other persons were ruled out from the analyses. Plural number and inanimate referents, although rare, were included. Infinitives in Spanish, whether adjuncts or complements, were regarded as clauses (see Torrego 1998; Zagona 2002). The production data were also qualitatively analysed for each category of subject (LS, OSP, NS) in each context (TC, TS).

In TC contexts, Greek and Spanish speakers were not considerably different in the use of NS and LS overall. Redundancy with respect to LS was found to be context-dependent, thus LS in TC do not a piori imply infelicity. Moreover, TC was not strictly encoded with NS. Overall, despite statistical differences in the relative frequency of subjects used in TC, qualitatively both groups behaved similarly revealing a generally homogeneous behaviour on subject distribution, conforming to postulations of accessibility accounts (e.g. Ariel 1990; Gundel et al. 1993; Carminati 2002). Accordingly, null referential subjects display biases towards establishing coreference with highly salient antecedents, such as subjects. OSP in TC were scantly used in cases of contrast or emphasis conveying focused information, in accordance with the literature (Tsimpli 2011; Chiou 2012; Prentza & Tsimpli 2012; Lozano 2018). It was anticipated that in Spanish there might be some redundant OSP in TC, since some tolerance for redundancy thereof has been reported in previous research (e.g. Alonso-Ovalle et al. 2002; Keating et al. 2011; Georgopoulos 2017; Lozano 2018). However, this was not the case in the Spanish production in this study. The findings were along the lines of several other studies (e.g. Montrul & Rodríguez Louro 2006; Miltsakaki 2007; Mayol 2012; Montrul 2016). 2ff7e9595c