Synopsis: Technological advancement is reshaping the ways in which language interpreters operate. This poses existential challenges to the profession but also offers new opportunities. This books moves from the design of the computer-assisted interpreting tool SmarTerp as a case study of impact-driven interpreting technology research. It demonstrates how usability testing was used to achieve an interpreter-centred design. By contextualising the case study within the past and current developments of translation and interpreting technology research, this book seeks to inform and inspire a redefinition of the conceptualisation of interpreting technology research—not just as a tool to understand change but to drive it into a sustainable and human direction.

Synopsis: In 1991, William Croft suggested that negative existentials (typically lexical expressions that mean ‘not exist, not have’) are one possible source for negation markers and gave his hypothesis the name Negative Existential Cycle (NEC). It is a variationist model based on cross-linguistic data. For a good twenty years following its formulation, it was cited at face-value without ever having been tested by (historical)-comparative data. Over the last decade, Ljuba Veselinova has worked on testing the model in a comparative perspective, and this edited volume further expands on her work.

The collection presented here features detailed studies of several language families such as Bantu, Chadic and Indo-European. A number of articles focus on the micro-variation and attested historical developments within smaller groups and clusters such as Arabic, Mandarin and Cantonese, and Nanaic. Finally, variation and historical developments in specific languages are discussed for Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Egyptian, Moksha-Mordvin (Uralic), Bashkir (Turkic), Kalmyk (Mongolic), three Pama-Nyungan languages, O’dam (Southern Uto-Aztecan) and Tacana (Takanan, Amazonian Bolivia). The book is concluded by two chapters devoted to modeling cyclical processes in language change from different theoretical perspectives.

Key notions discussed throughout the book include affirmative and negative existential constructions, the expansion of the latter into verbal negation, and subsequently from more specific to more general markers of negation. Nominalizations as well as the uses of negative existentials as standalone negative answers figure among the most frequent pathways whereby negative existentials evolve as general negation markers. The operation of the Negative Existential Cycle appears partly genealogically conditioned, as the cycle is found to iterate regularly within some families but never starts in others, as is the case in Bantu. In addition, other special negation markers such as nominal negators are found to undergo similar processes, i.e. they expand into the verbal domain and thereby develop into more general negation markers.

The book provides rich information on a specific path of the evolution of negation, on cyclical processes in language change, and it show-cases the historical-comparative method in a modern setting.

Synopsis: The complexities of speech production, perception, and comprehension are enormous. Theoretical approaches of these complexities most recently face the challenge of accounting for findings on subphonemic differences. The aim of the present dissertation is to establish a robust foundation of findings on such subphonemic differences.

One rather popular case for differences in subphonemic detail is word-final /s/ and /z/ in English (henceforth S) as it constitutes a number of morphological functions. Using word-final S, three general issues are investigated. First, are there subphonemic durational differences between different types of word-final S? If there are such differences, how can they be accounted for? Second, can such subphonemic durational differences be perceived? Third, do such subphonemic durational differences influence the comprehension of S?

These questions are investigated by five highly controlled studies: a production task, an implementation of Linear Discriminative Learning, a same-different task, and two number-decision tasks. Using not only real words but also pseudowords as target items, potentially confounding effects of lexical storage are controlled for.

Concerning the first issue, the results show that there are indeed durational differences between different types of word-final S. Non-morphemic S is longest in duration, clitic S is shortest in duration, and plural S duration is in-between non-morphemic S and clitic S durations. It appears that the durational differences are connected to a word’s semantic activation diversity and its phonological certainty. Regarding the second issue, subphonemic durational differences in word-final S can be perceived, with higher levels of perceptibility for differences of 35 ms and higher. In regard to the third issue, subphonemic durational differences are found not to influence the speed of comprehension, but show a significant effect on the process of comprehension. The overall results give raise to a revision of various extant models of speech production, perception, and comprehension.

Synopsis: This book provides the first comprehensive grammatical description of Choguita Rarámuri, a Uto-Aztecan language spoken in the Sierra Tarahumara, a mountainous range in the northern Mexican state of Chihuahua belonging to the Sierra Madre Occidental. A documentary corpus developed between 2003 and 2018 with Choguita Rarámuri language experts informs the analysis and is the source of the examples presented in this grammar. The documentary corpus, which consists of over 200 hours of recordings of elicited data, narratives, conversations, interviews, and other speech genres, is available in two archival collections housed at the Endangered Languages Archive and at UC Berkeley’s Survey of California and Other Indian Languages.

Choguita Rarámuri is a highly synthetic, agglutinating language with a complex morphological system. It displays many of the recurrent structural features documented across Uto-Aztecan, including a predominance of suffixation, head-marking, and patterns of noun-incorporation and compounding (Sapir 1921; Whorf 1935; Haugen 2008b). Other features of typological and theoretical interest include a complex word prosodic system, a wide range of morphologically conditioned phonological processes, and patterns of variable affix order and multiple exponence. Choguita Rarámuri is also of great comparative/historical importance: while several analytical works of Uto-Aztecan languages of Northern Mexico have been produced in the last years (Guerrero Valenzuela 2006, García Salido 2014, Reyes Taboada 2014, Morales Moreno 2016, Villalpando Quiñonez 2019, inter alia), many varieties still lack comprehensive linguistic description and documentation.

Synopsis: This volume provides a collection of research reports on multilingualism and language contact ranging from Romance, to Germanic, Greco and Slavic languages in situations of contact and diaspora. Most of the contributions are empirically-oriented studies presenting first-hand data based on original fieldwork, and a few focus directly on the methodological issues in such research. Owing to the multifaceted nature of contact and diaspora phenomena (e.g. the intrinsic transnational essence of contact and diaspora, and the associated interplay between majority and minoritized languages and multilingual practices in different contact settings, contact-induced language change, and issues relating to convergence) the disciplinary scope is broad, and includes ethnography, qualitative and quantitative sociolinguistics, formal linguistics, descriptive linguistics, contact linguistics, historical linguistics, and language acquisition. Case studies are drawn from Italo-Romance varieties in the Americas, Spanish-Nahuatl contact, Castellano Andino, Greko/Griko in Southern Italy, Yiddish in Anglophone communities, Frisian in the Netherlands, Wymysiöryś in Poland, Sorbian in Germany, and Pomeranian and Zeelandic Flemish in Brazil.

Sinopse: A Linguística Clínica reúne profissionais, investigadores e estudantes de diferentes graus académicos cujo foco de trabalho é a exploração da ponte entre a Linguística e a Fonoaudiologia (na tradição brasileira) ou a Terapia da Fala (na tradição portuguesa). Tem como objetivos centrais a construção de conhecimento sobre a natureza dos desempenhos linguísticos atípicos e a preocupação constante em tornar os processos de avaliação e de intervenção em contexto clínico cada vez mais rigorosos e eficazes.

O presente volume destina-se a quem estuda ou investiga aspetos relacionados com desempenhos linguísticos atípicos em países lusófonos, nomeadamente a estudantes e docentes de cursos de graduação e pós-graduação nas áreas da Terapia da Fala/ Fonoaudiologia, da Linguística, da Psicologia e da Educação.

Os capítulos que integram a presente publicação estão organizados em quatro blocos temáticos. O bloco inicial tem como objetivo central fornecer uma perspetiva histórica dos estudos em Fonologia Clínica e em Sintaxe Clínica. O segundo centra-se em aspetos fonológicos e sua relação com a dimensão fonética da língua. O terceiro bloco integra capítulos que exploram o módulo gramatical da sintaxe, a interface gramática-pragmática e o discurso. O último bloco reúne um conjunto de investigações sobre populações específicas.

Synopsis: Velar Fronting (VF) is the name for any synchronic or diachronic phonological process shifting the velar place of articulation to the palatal region of the vocal tract. A well-known case of VF in Standard German is the rule specifying that the fricative [x] assimilates to [ç] after front segments. VF also refers to the change from velar sounds like [ɣ k g ŋ] to palatals ([ʝ c ɟ ɲ]). The book provides a thorough investigation of VF in German dialects: Data are drawn from over 300 original sources for varieties that are (or were) spoken in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and other countries.

VF differs geographically along three parameters: (A) triggers, (B) targets, and (C) outputs. VF triggers (=A) are typically defined according to vowel height: In some systems VF is induced only by high front vowels, in others by high and mid front vowels, and in yet others by high, mid, and low front vowels. Some varieties treat consonants ([r l n]) as triggers, while others do not. VF can be nonassimilatory, in which case the rule applies even in the context of back segments. In many varieties of German, VF targets (=B) consist of the two fricatives [x ɣ], but in other dialects the targets comprise [x] but not [ɣ]. In some places, VF affects not only [x ɣ], but also velar stops and the velar nasal. The output of VF (=C) is typically palatal [ç] (given the input [x]), but in many other places it is the alveolopalatal [ɕ].

A major theme is the way in which VF interacts with synchronic and diachronic changes creating or eliminating structures which can potentially undergo it or trigger it. In many dialects the relationship between velars ([x]) and palatals ([ҫ]) is transparent because velars only occur in the back vowel context and palatals only when adjacent to front sounds. In that type of system, independent processes can either feed VF (by creating additional structures which the latter can undergo), or they can bleed it (by eliminating potential structures to which VF could apply).

In other dialects, VF is opaque. In one opaque system, both velars ([x]) and palatals ([ҫ]) surface in the context of front segments. Thus, in addition to expected front vowel plus palatal sequences ([…iç…]), there are also unexpected ones consisting of front vowel plus velar ([…ix…]). In a second type of opaque system, velars and palatals are found in the context of back segments; hence, expected sequences such as […iç…] occur in addition to unexpected ones like […ɑç…].

Synopsis: In most grammatical models, hierarchical structuring and dependencies are considered as central features of grammatical structures, an idea which is usually captured by the notion of “head” or “headedness”. While in most models, this notion is more or less taken for granted, there is still much disagreement as to the precise properties of grammatical heads and the theoretical implications that arise of these properties. Moreover, there are quite a few linguistic structures that pose considerable challenges to the notion of “headedness”. Linking to the seminal discussions led in Zwicky (1985) and Corbett, Fraser, & Mc-Glashan (1993), this volume intends to look more closely upon phenomena that are considered problematic for an analysis in terms of grammatical heads. The aim of this book is to approach the concept of “headedness” from its margins. Thus, central questions of the volume relate to the nature of heads and the distinction between headed and non-headed structures, to the process of gaining and losing head status, and to the thought-provoking question as to whether grammar theory could do without heads at all. The contributions in this volume provide new empirical findings bearing on phenomena that challenge the conception of grammatical heads and/or discuss the notion of head/headedness and its consequences for grammatical theory in a more abstract way. The collected papers view the topic from diverse theoretical perspectives (among others HPSG, Generative Syntax, Optimality Theory) and different empirical angles, covering typological and corpus-linguistic accounts, with a focus on data from German.

Synopsis:

This book offers a comparative perspective on the structural and interpretive properties of root-clause complementizers in Ibero-Romance. The driving question the author seeks to answer is where the boundaries between syntax and pragmatics lie in these languages. Contrary to most previous work on these phenomena, the author argues in favor of a relatively strict distribution of labor between the two components of grammar. The first part of the book is devoted to root complementizers with a reportative interpretation. The second part deals with root complementizers and commitment attribution. Finally, the last part presents the results of empirical studies on the topic.

Synopsis:

This book introduces formal grammar theories that play a role in current linguistic theorizing (Phrase Structure Grammar, Transformational Grammar/Government & Binding, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Lexical Functional Grammar, Categorial Grammar, Head-​Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction Grammar, Tree Adjoining Grammar). The key assumptions are explained and it is shown how the respective theory treats arguments and adjuncts, the active/passive alternation, local reorderings, verb placement, and fronting of constituents over long distances. The analyses are explained with German as the object language.

The second part of the book compares these approaches with respect to their predictions regarding language acquisition and psycholinguistic plausibility. The nativism hypothesis, which assumes that humans posses genetically determined innate language-specific knowledge, is critically examined and alternative models of language acquisition are discussed. The second part then addresses controversial issues of current theory building such as the question of flat or binary branching structures being more appropriate, the question whether constructions should be treated on the phrasal or the lexical level, and the question whether abstract, non-visible entities should play a role in syntactic analyses. It is shown that the analyses suggested in the respective frameworks are often translatable into each other. The book closes with a chapter showing how properties common to all languages or to certain classes of languages can be captured.

High nonresponse rates have become a rule in survey sampling. In panel surveys there occur additional sample losses due to panel attrition, which are thought to worsen the bias resulting from initial nonresponse. However, under certain conditions an initial wave nonresponse bias may vanish in later panel waves. We study such a "Fade away" of an initial nonresponse bias in the context of regression analysis. By using a time series approach for the covariate and the error terms we derive the bias of cross-sectional OLS-estimates of the slope coefficient. In the case of no subsequent attrition and only serial correlation an initial bias converges to zero. If the nonresponse affects permanent components the initial bias will decrease to a limit which is determined by the size of the permanent components. Attrition is discussed here in a worst case scenario, where there is a steady selective drift into the same direction as in the initial panel wave. It is shown that the fade away effect dampens the attrition effect to a large extent depending on the temporal stability of the covariate and the dependent variable. The attrition effect may by further reduced by a weighted regression analysis, where the weights are estimated attrition probabilities on the basis of the lagged dependent variable. The results are discussed with respect to surveys with unsure selection procedures which are used in a longitudinal fashion, like access panels.

Die Verknüpfung von administrativen Prüfungsdaten mit Umfragedaten zum sozialen Hintergrund der Studierenden, ihrer Studienfinanzierung, ihrer Motivation für den gewählten Studiengang sowie den Noten für die Zulassung zum Studiengang vermeidet die Schwachstellen üblicher studentischer Befragungen mit hohem Nonresponse und Erinnerungsfehlern. Dieser Ansatz wird hier zum Vergleich von fünf Masterstudiengängen am FB Wirtschaftswissenschaft der Freien Universität Berlin benutzt. Die Studierenden wurden auf der jeweiligen Auftaktveranstaltung ihrer Studiengänge befragt und über die ersten 6 Fachsemester hinsichtlich des Erwerbs von Studienpunkten, dem Abschluss ihres Masterstudiums sowie den dabei erzielten Noten begleitet. Aufgrund der Koppelung mit den administrativen Daten der gesamten Kohorte konnte ein Erfolgsbias der teilnahmebereiten Studierenden festgestellt werden, der aber durch eine geeignete Gewichtung über die Responserate gut beherrschbar ist. Wir vergleichen die Studiengänge in verschiedenen Phasen: Studieneingangsphase, Erreichen der Regelstudienzeit und Abschluss bis zum 6 Fachsemester. Weiterhin wird der Einfluss von Hintergrundmerkmalen auf die erreichte Note beim Studienabschluss untersucht. In der Studieneingangsphase ergeben sich deutliche Unterschiede zwischen den Studiengängen. Konditioniert man allerdings auf den Studienerfolg im ersten Semester, so verschwinden diese Unterschiede für die zweite Studienphase und den Abschluss des Studiums. Überraschend ist der geringe Einfluss der Bachelor-Note auf den Studienerfolg und die erzielte Master-Note. Die Ergebnisse zeigen die Möglichkeit auf, einen möglichen Studienabbruch schon relativ sicher anhand der erzielten Studienpunkte in der Studieneingangsphase zu erkennen.

Synopsis:

This volume explores and addresses questions related to equitable access for assessment. It seeks to initiate a conversation among scholars about inclusive practices in language assessments. Whether the student is a second language learner, a heritage language learner, a multilingual language speaker, a community member, the authors in the present volume provide examples of assessment that do not follow a single universal or standardized design but an applicable one based on the needs and context of a given community. The contributors in this volume are scholars from different disciplines and contexts in Higher Education. They have created and proposed multiple lower-stakes assignments and accommodated learning by being flexible and open without assuming that learners know how to do specific tasks. Each chapter provides different examples on Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) assessment practices based on observation, examination, and integrative notions of diverse language scenarios. It may be of interest to researchers and practitioners in the fields of curriculum and instruction, language learning, and applied linguistics as well as those in the field of language teaching in general. Thus this volume broadens the scope of research in the area of multilingual assessment.

While interdisciplinarity has definitely enriched archaeological research, especially in light of what has been called the “Third Science Revolution,” little has changed in terms of epistemology and methodology in archaeology. In fact, what counts as interdisciplinary research in archaeology nowadays is usually the application of natural science techniques to data that have been recovered archaeologically. Nevertheless, this form of archaeological research has become the gold standard, monopolising funding at various scales. Interdisciplinarity at its most basic simply means the collaboration between different disciplines. If this is true, one should ask why the term “interdisciplinary” is usually reserved for the combination of archaeology and the natural sciences, rather than the vast panoply of collaborative efforts in archaeology, such as those between art and archaeology or philosophy and archaeology? The aim of this paper is to argue that current interdisciplinary research is theoretically impoverished and non-transgressive. In fact, current interdisciplinary research relies on very basic methods and premises, oftentimes relying only on C14 dates or bone material recovered by standard archaeological methods. Rather than interdisciplinary research, it might make sense to think in terms of methodological anarchism. As the name indicates, methodological anarchism focuses more on methodologies than disciplines, giving priority to the different ways that the archaeological past can be explained. Rather than following strict formulas, as some interdisciplinary research tends to do, methodological anarchism advocates flexibility and choice of the methods that provide multi-faceted understandings of past reality.

Archaeology is very interdisciplinary in its orientation. Therefore, it presents a good case study for thinking about interdisciplinary cooperation. Most, if not all, problems with interdisciplinary cooperation ultimately reduce to problems of communication. An important part of these is due to cultural differences between academic disciplines. Real cultural differences underlie disciplinary divides, and these shape the ways people communicate. Such cultural differences can cause serious (and difficult to detect) communication problems. With careful attention to communication that is sensitive to disciplinary cultural differences, a lot of problems that are practical in nature but are fundamental to effective cooperative research can be mitigated. The importance of translators in interdisciplinary research teams is highlighted. Archaeology can use its slowly growing experience with intercultural communication to enhance its interdisciplinary effectiveness. In order to reap such benefits, it is important that attention is paid to training and employing people with a broad interdisciplinary basis, so that there are people equipped to fill the important role of translator.

With interdisciplinarity increasingly being emphasised as an unquestionable asset in archaeology and prioritised amongst research funding institutions and university strategists, it may be worthwhile exploring the nature of collaborative research: What are the political mechanisms of interdisciplinary research and how does epistemic dissonance affect collaborative efforts? In this article, I contend that truly interdisciplinary research should be capable of emphasising the sometimes radical differences between disciplinary research designs, ontologies, epistemologies, and definitions of knowledge. To this end, I pursue atmosphere as an example of a phenomenon that can, or should, be studied in a way that attends to epistemic differences, since atmosphere has different implications in different disciplinary settings. I will favour postmodern eclecticism – however altmodisch and unoriginal it may seem in the 2020s – as my methodical approach to atmosphere, since it lends itself to a messy and noisy multiplicity of epistemologies and research designs doing justice to the cross-disciplinary concept of atmosphere. The strength of eclecticism is its lack of consistency and stringency, and its capacity for sustaining epistemic dissonance instead of concealing it.

Archaeology has always been situated in a borderland between disciplines. However, in recent years a vigorous debate about the relationships between the humanities and the natural sciences has emerged within the field, warning that with the “Third Science Revolution” in archaeology, the important perspectives provided by the humanities are being marginalised, and that this can have long-lasting and detrimental effects on the discipline. This article critically examines the debate and situates it in the context of the development of the neoliberal university and its impact on research and intellectual work more broadly and identifies the underlying ideologies of ever-increasing research output and quantification as the real threat to an intellectually rich and engaged archaeology, not the natural sciences.

In this paper I focus on the way in which identity is framed in the context of multi-disciplinary work and explore this concept alongside that of interdisciplinarity. The reason for doing so is that many multidisciplinary studies claim that they are interdisciplinary, which they are not. But interdisciplinarity remains a desideratum. When trying to combine different datasets, there are several challenges inherent in the fact that the data are very different in nature: (1) each discipline might have its own ontological reading of the studied object, and (2) the scale the data operates on differs. Thus, instead of viewing interdisciplinarity as a framework that can integrate different strands of data, a “meta-model” that can be applied across cases, I propose that the solution is to see interdisciplinarity in looser terms as the creation of “trading zones,” to use Peter Galison’s concept. As an example, I will focus on the use of DNA data alongside other kinds of data when trying to reconstruct past identities.