1

We have been using scrpage2 and now switched to scrlayer-scrpage this caused the page number to raise by about 2mm.

enter image description here

enter image description here

Is there a way to avoid this?

\documentclass{scrbook}            

%\usepackage{scrlayer-scrpage}
\usepackage{scrpage2}

\usepackage{showframe}

\begin{document}
\chapter{Language acquisition}

~
\newpage

\noindent
that the acquisition of complex predicate formation is connected to the acquisition of compound
structures and that there is a parameter that is responsible for this type of compounding and
simultaneously for the following set of phenomena:
Snyder examined languages from various language groups: Afroasiatic, Austroasiatic, Austronesian,
Finno-Ugric, Indo-European (Germanic, Romance, Slavic), Japanese-Ko\-rean, Niger-Kordofanian
(Bantu), and Sino-Tibetan, as well as American Sign Language and the language isolate Basque. The
languages that were examined either had all of these phenomena or none. This was tested with native
speakers of the respective languages. In addition the claim that these phenomena are acquired once
noun-noun compounds are used productively was tested for English using CHILDES data. The result
was positive with the exception of the double object construction, for which an explanation was
provided. The correlation of the phenomena in (1) is interesting and was interpreted as proof of the
existence of a parameter that correlates several phenomena in a language. However, Son (2007) and
Son \& Svenonius (2008) showed that Snyder's claims for Japanese were wrong and that there are
further languages like Korean, Hebrew, Czech, Malayalam, Javanese in which some of the phenomena
show no correlations.

Gibson \& Wexler (1994) discuss the acquisition of constituent order and assume three parameters
that concern the position of the verb relative to the subject (SV vs. VS) and relative to the object
(VO vs. OV) as well as the V2-property. There is no consensus in the literature about which
parameters determine the make-up of languages (see Newmeyer 2005: Section 3.2 and Haspelmath 2008
for an overview and critical discussion). Fodor (1998a: 346–347) assumes that there are 20 to 30
parameters, Gibson \& Wexler (1994: 408) mention the number 40, Baker (2003: 349) talks of 10 to 20
and Roberts \& Holmberg (2005: 541) of 50 to 100. There is no consensus in the literature as to
which parameters one should assume, how they interact and what they predict. However, it is
nevertheless possible to contemplate how a grammar of an individual language could be derived from a
UG with parameters that need to be set. Chomsky’s original idea (1986b: Section 3.5.1) was that the
child sets the value of a parameter based on the language input as soon as the relevant evidence is
present from the input (see also Gibson \& Wexler 1994; Nowak, Komarova \& Niyogi 2001). At a given
point in time, the learner has a grammar with certain parameter settings that correspond to the
input seen so far. In order to fully acquire a grammar, all parameters must be assigned a value. In
theory, thirty utterances should be enough to acquire a grammar with thirty parameters if these
utterances provide unambiguous evidence for a particular parameter value.

This approach has often been criticized. If setting a parameter leads to a learner using a different
grammar, one would expect sudden changes in linguistic behavior. This is, however, not the case (Bloom 1993: 731). Fodor (1998a: 343–344) also notes the following three problems: 1) Parameters can affect things that are not visible from the perceptible constituent order. 2) Many sentences are ambiguous with regard to the setting of a particular parameter, that is, there are sometimes multiple combinations of parameters compatible with one utterance. Therefore, the respective utterances cannot be used to set any parameters (Berwick \& Niyogi 1996; Fodor 1998b). 3) There is a problem with the interaction of parameters. Normally multiple parameters play a role in an utterance such that it can be difficult to determine which parameter contributes what and thus how the values should be determined.

\end{document}

Edit: I am sorry, the description was misleading. The package option mentioned in one solution affects the bottom line and the page number, but it does not change the behavior that I would like to change. The page number gets closer to the text with scrbook + footlines=1 + srclayer-srcpage: enter image description here

scrbook+scrpage2: enter image description here

2

With a KOMA-Script class and only normal size page numbers in footer, you could use \documentclass[footlines=1]{scrbook} or \KOMAoptions{footlines=1}\recalctypearea or \KOMAoptions{footheight=\baselineskip}\recalctypearea. But each of these versions will change \footskip to 2.25\baselineskip+\footheight. So you have to reset \footskip to 3.5\baselineskip after each recalculation of the typearea.

Example:

\documentclass{scrbook}
\KOMAoptions{footheight=\baselineskip}
\AfterCalculatingTypearea{\setlength{\footskip}{3.5\baselineskip}}
\recalctypearea

\usepackage{scrlayer-scrpage}

\usepackage{showframe}% to show the page layout
\usepackage{lipsum}% only for dummy text
\begin{document}
\chapter{Language acquisition}
\lipsum[1-20]
\end{document}

enter image description here

3
  • Thanks, for reasons unknown to me this does not seem to work with the langsci class, which loads scrbook. \LoadClass[footlines=1]{scrbook} Maybe the loading mechanism does something different and the option is not passed on. Sep 11 '20 at 7:33
  • I tried. And the solution does not work. It affects the distance between the line and the number, but both line and number together are higher in your solution. Sep 14 '20 at 8:50
  • 1
    See my updated answer.
    – esdd
    Sep 16 '20 at 15:48
0

I didn't find a way to fix this within scrlayer-scrpage, but with fancyhdr you can work around this.

It might not be the most elegant solution but it solves your problem. Just add this to the preamble (after \usepackage{scrlayer-scrpage}):

\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\fancyfoot{} %delete footer
\fancyfoot[RO,LE]{\thepage} %reset footer

result

1
  • 3
    Welcome to TeX.SX! You can have a look at our starter guide to familiarize yourself further with our format. According to the KOMA documentation, it is not advised to use fancyhdr, instead the packages used by @StefanMüller are recommended.
    – TobiBS
    Aug 20 '20 at 20:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.