Romanian Weak Pronoun Choice Data

The following corpus study shows that soft linguistic constraints are hard to describe and operationalize. In specific contexts, some Romanian clitic pronouns allow a choice between phonological hosts such as in că-mi dai cartea vs. că îmi dai cartea both meaning [that you give me the book]. What determines the choice between subjunction că in că-mi and prosthetic î in îmi (cf. Lombard 1976)? Popescu (2003, p. 160) argues for speech rate as surface realization trigger (monosyllabic că-mi in fast speech vs. bisyllabic că îmi in normal speech), while Dindelegan (2013, p. 388) argues for register rules (informal că-mi vs. formal că îmi). This means that formal, written language represents one extreme of a formality scale while informal, spoken language the other. Thus, a Romanian corpus of official documents, such as legal texts, is expected to contain only or significantly many forms with prosthetic î for constellations with otherwise optional variants. To test these two hypotheses, the Romanian part of the JRC-Acquis corpus (http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/) has been tagged with the RACAI tagger (http: //www.racai.ro). The resulting corpus of 62,650,821 tokens (including punctuation) has been evaluated wrt. the phenomena under scrutiny. Taking into account specific hosts, enclitic forms have been compared with their î-prosthetic counterparts. The numbers show almost no or statistically insignificant difference in usage for some specific host+clitic pairs (e.g., 3886 să îşi vs. 3852 să-şi [that to himself/ herself ], 200 ce îi vs. 110 ce-i [what to him/her]). From a usage-based perspective, these findings are clear arguments both against the register rules purported by D indelegan (2013) and against a pure speech rate hypothesis as in Popescu (2003). Since the JRC-Acquis corpus is translated from English by different translators, perhaps both native and non-native speakers of Romanian, a further corpus of original Romanian legal texts is being compiled for further analysis and comparison.
The full dataset consists of (1) two tgz-files containing the pos-tagged data extracted from the JRC-Acquis corpus: enclitic forms and î-prosthetic forms. The data is xml format, which is described in (2) the description file. (3) the draft of the article as pdf-file for linguistic background.

本语料库研究揭示了软性语言约束的描述和操作化之难。在特定语境中，某些罗马尼亚语粘着代词允许在语音宿主之间进行选择，例如在 că-mi dai cartea 与 că îmi dai cartea 之间，两者均意为“你给我书”。是什么因素决定了 că-mi 中的子句 că 与 îmi 中的补足性 î（参照 Lombard 1976）之间的选择？Popescu（2003，第160页）认为语速是表面实现触发因素（快速语速中的单音节 că-mi 与正常语速中的双音节 că îmi），而 Dindelegan（2013，第388页）则主张语域规则（非正式的 că-mi 与正式的 că îmi）。这意味着，正式的书面语言代表了正式性尺度的一端，而口语化的口头语言则是另一端。因此，一个包含官方文件，如法律文本的罗马尼亚语语料库，预计将仅包含或显著包含许多带有可选变体星座的补足性 î 的形式。为了检验这两种假设，JRC-Acquis 语料库的罗马尼亚语部分（http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/）已由 RACAI 标注器（http://www.racai.ro）进行标注。由此产生的包含 62,650,821 个标记（包括标点符号）的语料库已经针对审查的现象进行了评估。考虑到特定的宿主，粘着形式与其 î 补足性对应形式进行了比较。数据显示，对于一些特定的宿主+粘着对，在用法上几乎不存在或存在统计学上不显著的差异（例如，3886 să îşi 与 3852 să-şi [给他/她]，200 ce îi 与 110 ce-i [对他/她是什么]）。从基于用法的视角来看，这些发现既是对 D indelegan（2013）所声称的语域规则的明确反驳，也是对 Popescu（2003）提出的纯粹语速假设的明确反驳。鉴于 JRC-Acquis 语料库由不同的翻译者从英语翻译而来，其中包括罗马尼亚语的母语者和非母语者，因此正在编纂另一个包含原始罗马尼亚语法律文本的语料库，以进行进一步的分析和比较。

该完整数据集包括（1）两个包含从 JRC-Acquis 语料库中提取的词性标注数据的 tgz 文件：粘着形式和 î 补足性形式。数据为 xml 格式，具体描述见（2）描述文件。（3）文章草案作为 pdf 文件，用于语言背景。