SPLIT
(Sociolinguistics) In a simple model of sound change, there are two possible events: splits and mergers. A split takes an existing category and cuts it in two; some of its tokens are assigned to a different (possibly new) category. | Ollie Sayeed, 2022

SPLIT ANTECEDENT ELLIPSIS
(Syntax) The marquee example of split antecedent VP ellipsis is in (1), due to Bonnie Webber (1978).

Bob wants to sail round the world and Alice wants to climb Kilimanjaro, but neither of them can [ ], because money is too tight.

SPLIT CONSTRUCTION
(Syntax) In which phrasal constituents are divided into parts in the surface structure, these parts being separated by any string of words (consisting of at least one item) not belonging to this particular phrasal constituent. This definition is to some extent based on the one formulated by Reszkiewicz (1966).
 What Reszkiewicz (1966) understands by a split is "any case when a sentence element, major or minor, is split into two and the two fragments are placed in different places". | Elżbieta Sielanko, 1994

SPLIT SCOPE

1. (Semantics) The phenomenon where different components of an expression's meaning take scope in different places. Negative quantifiers are one category of expression which have been argued to take split scope.
   1. The company need fire no employees.
    On the de re (non-split) reading, this sentence means that there is no employee such that the company needs to fire that employee. This is a non-split scope reading since no simply takes scope above the modal need. On the split scope reading of the sentence, it means that it is not the case that the company needs to fire any employees. On this reading, no decomposes into a negation scoping above need and an existential quantifier scoping below it (Potts 2000).
    Indefinites have been argued to have split scope, having separate existential scope and distributive scope. This fact can be seen in the following example (Baker 2015, Szabolcsi 2010, Eddy 1992):
   2. If three relatives of mine die, I will inherit a house.
    Among this sentence's readings is one which means 'There exists a set of three relatives such that, if those three relatives die, I will inherit a house.' On this reading, the indefinite three relatives of mine takes existential scope outside the conditional—it asserts unconditionally that those three relatives do in fact exist. However, if the indefinite takes distributive scope inside the conditional, the speaker will inherit a house if three relatives die, not if x dies, where x can be any of those three relatives. | Wikipedia, 2023
2. (Semantics) Quantificational noun phrases that are not upward monotonic give rise to truth-conditionally distinct, so-called split scope readings across intensional verbs (Heim 2001). Consider (1)-(3):
   1. The company need fire no employees.
      'It is not the case that the company is obligated to fire employees.' (Potts 2000)
   2. At MIT one must publish fewer than three books in order to get tenure.
      'At MIT one must publish at least n books in order to get tenure, and n is less than three.' (Hackl 2000)
   3. How many books does Chris want to buy?
      'What is the number n such that Chris wants it to be the case that there are n books that he buys?' (Rullman 1995)
    Examples (1) and (2) need not be about actual employees or books, so we can put wide scope, de re readings aside. In (1), the split scope reading entails a lack of obligation for the company (it doesn't have to fire employees), whereas the narrow scope reading does entail an obligation (the company has the obligation to not fire any employees). In (2), the split scope reading says that, in order to get tenure at MIT, the requirement is that one publishes at least one or two books (the maximal number of books such that in all possible worlds one publishes that many books is less than three). The narrow scope reading imposes the implausible requirement that the number of books that you publish be less than three; if you publish more, you don't get tenure. The split scope reading of (3) is a cardinality question; if the answer is five, then Chris wants to buy some set of books or other whose cardinality is five, no matter which books they are. The wide scope reading (there is no narrow scope reading here), on the other hand, does care about the identity of those books. If the answer is five, then Chris wants to buy a particular set of books (e.g., To Kill a Mockingbird, As I Lay Dying, Invisible Man, A Passage to India and Winesburg, Ohio), and it so happens that the cardinality of this set is five.
    We call the readings of interest here split scope readings because they involve noun phrases which seem to scope in two different places at the same time. The overtly expressed quantifier (negation, a maximality operator, a cardinality operator) takes scope above an intensional verb (need, must, want). At the same time, the reference of the nominal restriction (employees, books) varies with the worlds introduced by the intensional verb, something which is often modeled as a silent low existential operator (the paraphrases of (1) and (3) reflect this better than the paraphrase of (2)). | Klaus Abels and Luisa Martí, 2010

SPLIT SEMANTEME

1. (Morphology) Consider the Athapaskan split semantemes or interrupted synthesis, to quote the terms used by Simpson-Withgott (1986), and illustrated here with their Navajo example of (1), which represent—in the opinion of those scholars—the potential violation of the Adjacency and No Lookahead Constraints. I defend the idea that the so-called Old Irish lexical compounds can also be interpreted as split semantemes, in spite of their traditional consideration as different elements.
   1. di
      firePREF

      -sh
      -1SG

      -łid
      -burn

      'I burn it'
    The Old Irish language provides plenty of examples of verbal complexes in which the basic lexical unit is a split semanteme. This is the case of the lexical compounds, which, depending on the clause type, must have a constitutive carrier of its lexical meaning in slot 1. An example is the compound ad-cí 'sees', seen in (2).
   2. nímunaccammar (Wb 18d3)
      1
      ní-(i)m-

      2
      un-

      3
      ad-

      4
      ca

      5
      -mmar

      NEG.DECL-RECIPR-1PL-see-see/PST-1PL

      'we had not seen one another'
    | Carlos García Castillero, 2014
2. (Morphosyntax) In addition to the position /morpheme bipolarity emphasized by the slot and filler approach, there is another facet of the Navajo verb, which Sapir called interrupted synthesis. Whorf described this facet in a paper he wrote for Sapir in 1932:

    This trait of split semantemes, of making the expression of an idea depend upon a binary compound that is readily interrupted by the expression of auxiliary ideas or by some of the interrupted parts of auxiliary expressions likewise binomially composed—interrupted synthesis, to use Sapir's term for it—is the outstanding peculiarity of Athabaskan: The interlocking of a number of interrupted semantemes into a firmly knit structure seems to be a leading principle of coherence in these languages ...
    Athabaskan languages present the appearance of highly patternized combinations of small elements having independent and discernable meanings, but used largely in formula-like combinations ... There is, however, much phonetic interaction and contraction between the elements of a combination. (Whorf 1932, cited in Kari 1979)

    An example of a split semanteme would be the compound prefix ná...di 'movement upward' in náshizhdiiłteeh 'he picks me up'. | Peggy Speas, 1982

SPORADIC SOUND CHANGE

1. (Phonology) Attested in some forms but not in others. | Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, 1997
2. (Historical Sociolinguistics) The external history of most languages shows the uneven path of development that corresponds well to the sporadic character of sound change [sporadic, that is, in its unpredictability of occurrence, despite the regularity of its outcome]. (Labov 1994)
    Let us examine a typical case of what has traditionally been called sporadic sound change (generally felt to be non-regular—i.e., outside the domain of Neogrammarian "sound laws"): Proto-Polynesian (PPN) *lango shows up as ngaro in Maori. The expected outcome, given the regular change of PPN l to Maori r, is rango—the attested form shows an irregular metathesis. This "change" took place on at least one occasion in the speech of someone from whom, for sociolinguistic reasons, it diffused. | Mark Hale, 2003

SPROUTING
(Syntax) Sluicing is often possible even when there is no overt inner antecedent:

1. John left, but I don't know when __.

SQUISH
(Grammar) A number of phenomena suggest that the traditional distinction between verbs, adjective, and nouns—a distinction which is commonly thought of as discrete—should be modified. I will postulate, instead of a fixed, discrete inventory of syntactic categories, a quasi-continuum, which contains at least the categories shown in (1), ordered as shown there.

1. Verb
   > Present participle
   > Perfect participle
   > Passive participle
   > Adjective
   > Preposition(?)
   > "Adjectival noun" (e.g. fun, snap)
   > Noun

SQUISHING
(Syntax) Pronouncing an XP and whatever this XP dominates (including any YP inside that XP) as a phonological word (e.g. Compton and Pittman 2010, Lochbihler and Mathieu 2007, Barrie and Mathieu 2012, a.o.). | Maire Noonan, 2023

STANCE

1. (Sociolinguistics) The overt expression of an author's or speaker's attitudes, feelings, judgments, or commitment concerning the message. | Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan, 1988
2. (Sociolinguistics) All communication involves acts of stance, in which speakers take up positions vis-à-vis the expressive, referential, interactional, and social implications of their speech. | Alexandra Jaffe, 2009
3. (Sociolinguistics) Ochs (1992) proposes that the indexical relationship between language and social meaning should be seen as involving two levels. At the level of direct indexicality, linguistic forms most immediately index interactional stances—that is, subjective orientations to ongoing talk, including affective, evaluative, and epistemic stances (cf. Du Bois 2007). At the level of indirect indexicality, these same linguistic forms become associated with particular social types believed to take such stances. It is at the indirect indexical level that ideology comes most centrally into play, for it is here that stances acquire more enduring semiotic associations.
    Drawing on discourse data among university fraternity members, Kiesling (2004) argues that interactionally dude creates an intersubjective alignment of friendly nonintimacy. Thus the direct indexicality of the term is to project a "stance of cool solidarity" (2004), and this stance is often linked via indirect indexicality to masculinity and male speakers. As Kiesling puts it:

   The term is used mainly in situations in which a speaker takes a stance of solidarity or camaraderie, but crucially in a nonchalant, not-too-enthusiastic manner ... The reason young men use this term is precisely that dude indexes this stance of cool solidarity. Such a stance is especially valuable for young men as they navigate cultural discourses of young masculinity, which simultaneously demand masculine solidarity, strict heterosexuality, and nonconformity. (2004)

    | Mary Bucholz, 2009
4. (Sociolinguistics) Or, stancetaking. A concept that has been used mostly in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology as a means of referring to ways that people position themselves in conversation, often in terms of politeness, certainty, or affect/emotion. It is a concept that has no single theoretical understanding, and it is used with sometimes maddening variety across a number of types of research traditions and publications.
    The core concept of stance in many studies, and the reason it is useful for linguistics, is that it refers to the relationships that a speaker is attempting to indicate to other people in an interaction—the interactants—and to the content and objects being constructed within their talk. Furthermore, much of the usefulness of stance in sociolinguistics has to do with the contrast between these two relationships; that is, the ways that a speaker indicates their stance toward the entities they are referring to can affect their relationship to the interactants. Finally, stance incorporates an inherently dialogic and intersubjective focus, being something that in practice is negotiated in interaction—once a speaker makes an attempt or provides a stance signal, other speakers may take up or resist those attempts in various ways (see Du Bois and Kärkkäinen 2012 on intersubjectivity).
    Importantly, "stance" is a word that draws on a physical metaphor of how people compose themselves. For example, a physically defensive stance indicates that a person (or animal) is readying for conflict, and a submissive stance can be one that indicates the other person is not willing to fight. Of course, the word is also used informally in its metaphorical sense, and these uses are often related to positions a person or other entity (such as a state or a corporation) takes regarding an idea or a claim (e.g., What's your stance on whether eggs should be opened at the small end or the wide end?). It is often used in press stories about international relations when discussing one country's stance toward another (e.g., the headline Most Americans Support Tough Stance Toward China on Human Rights, Economic Issues, from Silver et al. 2021) or one person or entity's stance toward an idea or concept (e.g., a recent headline in the National Catholic Reporter that "US Bishops Need to Recalibrate Their Stance Toward the Culture"; Winters 2020). These everyday uses of the term are important because they are presupposed in the use of stance in sociolinguistic research. Most importantly, they indicate that stance is fundamentally relational: In the physical metaphor, it is literally how a body is held with respect to another body, and in the everyday metaphorical sense, it refers to an attitude toward another entity or concept. (For a corpus study of the use of stance, see Englebretson 2007.) | Scott F. Kiesling, 2021

STANCE TRIANGLE
(Sociolinguistics) To avoid the expansion of different types of stance, Du Bois (2007) methodologically provides a systematic representation for stance, including the representation of the "stance triangle" with manipulation.
 Du Bois (2007) defines the concept of stance as three interrelated acts of evaluating, positioning, (dis)alignment occurring among three elements (Subject 1, Subject 2 and Object), which is a public act reached by explicit means of communication by subjects. Subject 1 (the speaking subject who is responsible for the stance) and Subject 2 (the referential object or target toward which the stance is being directed) stand for the co-participants, and the Object (the prior stance that the current stance is being formulated in response to) is a shared attentional topic they are talking about, such as a person, an event, a proposition and so on. The three sides of the triangle indicate vectors of directed action that organize the stance relations among these entities.

1. Evaluation, as the most salient form of stance-taking, is defined by Du Bois (2007) as "the process whereby a stance-taker orients to an object of stance" and is characterized as having some specific quality or value.
2. Positioning is defined as "the act of situating a social actor with respect to responsibility for stance and for invoking socio-cultural value" (Du Bois 2007), and corresponds to the concern of the stance taker. It is not only an affective scale but also an epistemic scale.
3. (Dis)alignment is defined as "the act of calibrating the relationship between two stances, and by implication between two stance-takers" (Du Bois 2007). The notion of alignment, according to Du Bois, does not refer to agreeing per se, but the ways by which interactants position themselves in relation to each other.

1. Firstly, Subject 1 introduces a Stance Object in an utterance, simultaneously evaluates the Object and positions a subject.
2. The next act occurs when Subject 2 evaluates the same object that Subject 1 has just evaluated and positions himself/herself in relation to it.
3. Thirdly, Subject 1 and Subject 2 (dis)align with each other.

STANDARD DIALECT
(Sociolinguistics) A part of a language that is traditionally equated with the language itself, and seen as the product of such "refining" forces as use at a royal court, by the middle classes, and in literature, printing, publishing, and education. Because the standard has generally been set apart from and above dialect, the phrase "standard dialect" is sometimes used to indicate that, in linguistic terms, it too can be regarded as a dialect, despite its special status. | Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language, 2018

STANDARDIZATION
(Sociolinguistics) Establishment of a system of spelling, grammar, or pronunciation as a prestige variety. | Haruko Momma, 2008

STATIVE VERB

1. (Grammar) According to some linguistics theories, a stative verb is a verb that describes a state of being, in contrast to a dynamic verb, which describes an action. The difference can be categorized by saying that stative verbs describe situations that are static or unchanging throughout their entire duration, whereas dynamic verbs describe processes that entail change over time (Binnick 1991). Many languages distinguish between these two types in terms of how they can be used grammatically (Michaelis 2011). | Wikipedia, 2023
2. (Grammar) A verb that refers to a state of being rather than an action. For example, the verb know in We know French is stative, while the verb learn in We learn French is not. Stative verbs typically cannot appear in the progressive: *I am knowing French is ungrammatical because know is stative and cannot be used in the progressive. However, I am learning French, which uses the eventive verb learn, is grammatical. Some verbs can have both stative and non-stative (eventive) interpretations. For example, smell can be stative (The flowers smell good) or eventive (I smell something rotten in the fridge). | Yale Grammatical Diversity Project

Page Created By Split March 29, 2024

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x