Raw Reading Times (ms) - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
Raw Reading Times (ms) - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
Raw Reading Times (ms) - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
GLOW NEWSLETTER GLOW BUREAU<br />
GLOW Newsletter #68, Spr<strong>in</strong>g 2012<br />
Edited by Marc Richards<br />
Addresses:<br />
Marc Richards Utrecht Institute of <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> OTS<br />
Institut für L<strong>in</strong>guistik Utrecht University<br />
Goe<strong>the</strong>-Universität Frankfurt PO Box 85253<br />
Grüneburgplatz 1 3508 AG Utrecht<br />
60629 Frankfurt The Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands<br />
Germany Phone + 31 30 253 9163<br />
richards@em.uni-frankfurt.de Fax + 31 30 253 6406<br />
glow@let.uu.nl<br />
http://www.glow-l<strong>in</strong>guistics.org/
GLOW Newsletter & Conference Handbook<br />
CONTENTS<br />
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2<br />
Changes to <strong>the</strong> Board ....................................................................................................... 3<br />
GLOW 35, Potsdam: Practical <strong>in</strong>formation ....................................................................... 4<br />
Conference Site ............................................................................................................. 4<br />
Campus Map ................................................................................................................. 5<br />
Registration .................................................................................................................. 5<br />
Registration Fees and Payment .................................................................................... 5<br />
Reimbursement and Waivers ....................................................................................... 6<br />
Travel Information ........................................................................................................ 6<br />
Accommodation ............................................................................................................ 8<br />
Conference D<strong>in</strong>ner and Party ...................................................................................... 10<br />
Day Care...................................................................................................................... 10<br />
Contact Information ................................................................................................... 10<br />
Selection Procedure........................................................................................................ 10<br />
Statistics by Country ....................................................................................................... 11<br />
GLOW 35 Program .......................................................................................................... 12<br />
Colloquium: Context <strong>in</strong> Grammar: A frequent visitor or a regular <strong>in</strong>habitant?,<br />
March 28-30 ............................................................................................................... 12<br />
Workshop 1: The tim<strong>in</strong>g of grammar: experimental and <strong>the</strong>oretical considerations,<br />
March 27 ..................................................................................................................... 15<br />
Workshop 2: Production and perception of prosodically-encoded <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
structure, March 27 .................................................................................................... 17<br />
Workshop 3: Empty categories <strong>in</strong> syntax, March 31 .................................................. 18<br />
Workshop 4: Association with focus, March 31 ......................................................... 19<br />
Abstracts <strong>in</strong> alphabetical order (unnumbered pages) ………………………………………………. 20<br />
1
INTRODUCTION<br />
Welcome to <strong>the</strong> 68 th GLOW Newsletter and Conference Handbook, and to <strong>the</strong> 35 th GLOW<br />
Conference, be<strong>in</strong>g held this year <strong>in</strong> Potsdam from <strong>the</strong> 27th to <strong>the</strong> 31st of March.<br />
As discussed and agreed at last year’s Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Vienna, <strong>the</strong> Spr<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Newsletter has jo<strong>in</strong>ed its Fall sibl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> becom<strong>in</strong>g an electronic-only publication. This is<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> first edition of <strong>the</strong> Spr<strong>in</strong>g newsletter which you will not be receiv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ted<br />
booklet form. Content-wise, you will f<strong>in</strong>d that noth<strong>in</strong>g has changed: <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g pages<br />
conta<strong>in</strong> all <strong>the</strong> usual essential <strong>in</strong>formation for attend<strong>in</strong>g this year’s conference, with practical<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation start<strong>in</strong>g on page 4, details of <strong>the</strong> selection procedure on pp. 10-11, <strong>the</strong> full<br />
progra<strong>ms</strong> for <strong>the</strong> Colloquium (March 28-30) and all four surround<strong>in</strong>g workshops (March 27 and<br />
31) from page 12 onwards, and f<strong>in</strong>ally all <strong>the</strong> abstracts for this year’s talks and poster<br />
presentations. All that’s changed is that, if you want to carry any of this <strong>in</strong>formation around<br />
with you <strong>in</strong> hard copy, you’ll have to pr<strong>in</strong>t out <strong>the</strong> relevant pages yourselves! We hope that<br />
this move to electronic form will enable GLOW to make considerable sav<strong>in</strong>gs on both pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g<br />
and mail<strong>in</strong>g costs, allow<strong>in</strong>g this money to be better spent elsewhere. One immediate benefit is<br />
that <strong>the</strong> newsletter is now less limited by space and length restrictions, so that we have been<br />
able to <strong>in</strong>clude <strong>in</strong> this issue <strong>the</strong> abstracts for <strong>the</strong> various poster sessions tak<strong>in</strong>g place dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
Colloquium and workshops, <strong>in</strong> addition to <strong>the</strong> oral presentations.<br />
We appreciate, of course, that some of you may f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> need to pr<strong>in</strong>t out <strong>the</strong><br />
newsletter to be an <strong>in</strong>convenience which detracts from its usefulness as a conference guide.<br />
Any such comments on <strong>the</strong> new format, positive or negative, would be gratefully received, as<br />
would feedback on <strong>the</strong> legibility of <strong>the</strong> newsletter on <strong>the</strong> various k<strong>in</strong>ds of e-readers that you<br />
might be us<strong>in</strong>g to read it on. You can email your concerns and suggestions to me at<br />
richards@em.uni-frankfurt.de; alternatively, <strong>the</strong>y can be raised at this year’s Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Meet<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong> Potsdam on Thursday March 29th (from 17:30: after <strong>the</strong> day’s talks and before <strong>the</strong><br />
conference d<strong>in</strong>ner-party). Indeed, on a more general note, we would encourage as many of<br />
you as possible to attend <strong>the</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess meet<strong>in</strong>g, as this is your chance to have your say <strong>in</strong> how<br />
GLOW is run, its organization and activities, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g how your membership fees are spent.<br />
Last year’s bus<strong>in</strong>ess meet<strong>in</strong>g was particularly poorly attended, so don’t forget to stay on for a<br />
wee bit after <strong>the</strong> talks on Thursday if you’re <strong>in</strong>terested. Consider it a warm-up for <strong>the</strong> party…<br />
Marc Richards<br />
2
CHANGES TO THE BOARD<br />
The current composition of <strong>the</strong> GLOW Board is given <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> table below.<br />
Congress President Gisbert Fanselow 2011-2012<br />
Chairperson Sjef Barbiers 2011-2013<br />
Secretary Jeroen van Craenenbroeck 2011-2013<br />
Treasurer Maaike Schoorlemmer 2011-2013<br />
Newsletter Editor Marc Richards 2010-2012<br />
Journal Editor Harry van der Hulst<br />
Website Manager Pavel Iosad 2011-2013<br />
Member A Anna Card<strong>in</strong>aletti 2010-2012<br />
Member B Lida Veselovska 2011-2013<br />
Member C Viola Schmitt 2011-2013<br />
Member D Maria-Rosa Lloret 2010-2012<br />
Advisory member 1 Henk van Rie<strong>ms</strong>dijk<br />
Advisory member 2 Mart<strong>in</strong> Everaert<br />
Co-opted member Tobias Scheer 2011-2013<br />
(Phonology)<br />
Every year, several positions come up for renewal. Nom<strong>in</strong>ations are normally sent directly to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Chair, who accepts until January 1st. The GLOW Board wishes to rem<strong>in</strong>d GLOW members<br />
to be th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g about who <strong>the</strong>y would like to represent <strong>the</strong>m on <strong>the</strong> board <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> future, and to<br />
nom<strong>in</strong>ate those people <strong>in</strong> good time.<br />
For <strong>the</strong> com<strong>in</strong>g year, <strong>the</strong> Board has made or received <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g nom<strong>in</strong>ations:<br />
� Halldόr Sigurðsson (Congress President)<br />
� Marc Richards (re-election for Newsletter Editor)<br />
� Roberta D’Alessandro (Member A)<br />
� Maria-Rosa Lloret (re-election for Member D)<br />
3
WELCOME TO GLOW 35, POTSDAM!<br />
The 35th GLOW Colloquium is tak<strong>in</strong>g place <strong>in</strong> Potsdam, Germany, from 28th to 30th<br />
March 2012, hosted by <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> Department of <strong>the</strong> University of Potsdam and<br />
<strong>the</strong> Collaborative Research Center SFB 632 "Information Structure". The topic of this<br />
year's Colloquium is Context <strong>in</strong> grammar: a frequent visitor or a regular <strong>in</strong>habitant?. In<br />
addition to <strong>the</strong> Colloquium, <strong>the</strong>re will be four <strong>the</strong>matic workshops tak<strong>in</strong>g place on<br />
Tuesday 27th March and Saturday 31st March: The tim<strong>in</strong>g of grammar: experimental<br />
and <strong>the</strong>oretical considerations (27th March; organized by Harald Clahsen and Claudia<br />
Felser), Production and perception of prosodically-encoded <strong>in</strong>formation structure (27th<br />
March; organized by Frank Kügler and Sab<strong>in</strong>e Zerbian), Empty categories <strong>in</strong> syntax: are<br />
<strong>the</strong>re any? (31st March; organized by Gisbert Fanselow and Gereon Müller), and<br />
Association with focus (31st March; organized by Malte Zimmermann and Mira<br />
Grubic).<br />
PRACTICAL INFORMATION<br />
CONFERENCE SITE<br />
The Colloquium and <strong>the</strong> workshops will take place <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Griebnitzsee Campus of <strong>the</strong><br />
University of Potsdam, located right next to <strong>the</strong> Griebnitzsee tra<strong>in</strong> station (Griebnitzsee<br />
Hbf). All <strong>the</strong> talks will take place <strong>in</strong> Haus 6 (‘build<strong>in</strong>g’ 6; please see campus map below).<br />
The Griebnitzsee campus is accessible from both Potsdam and Berl<strong>in</strong>. The<br />
transportation options are listed below. Full schedules for all <strong>the</strong> buses and tra<strong>in</strong>s are<br />
downloadable from <strong>the</strong> conference website (http://www.l<strong>in</strong>g.unipotsdam.de/~glow/venue.html).<br />
� Com<strong>in</strong>g from Potsdam:<br />
o Bus 694 towards Drewitz/Stern Center: leaves from Potsdam<br />
Hauptbahnhof every 20 m<strong>in</strong>utes.<br />
o Tra<strong>in</strong> RB22 towards Griebnitzsee: goes through Potsdam Hauptbahnhof<br />
(platform 4) every 30 m<strong>in</strong>utes.<br />
o Tra<strong>in</strong> S7 towards Ahrensfelde: leaves from Potsdam Hauptbahnhof<br />
every 10 m<strong>in</strong>utes.<br />
� Com<strong>in</strong>g from Berl<strong>in</strong>:<br />
o Tra<strong>in</strong> S7 towards Potsdam Hbf: leaves every 10 m<strong>in</strong>utes from several<br />
stations <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Alexanderplatz, Friedrichstraße,<br />
Hauptbahnhof, Zoologischer Garten, and Charlottenburg.<br />
Depend<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> location of your hotel, you may need to take additional<br />
transportation to reach one of <strong>the</strong> stations above. If so, we recommend you consult<br />
<strong>the</strong> trip planner at http://www.bvg.de.<br />
4
CAMPUS MAP<br />
REGISTRATION<br />
Everybody attend<strong>in</strong>g GLOW 35 (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g presenters) must be a paid-up member of<br />
GLOW. Information on how to jo<strong>in</strong> is available on <strong>the</strong> GLOW homepage<br />
(http://www.glow-l<strong>in</strong>guistics.org/). We will also provide an option to jo<strong>in</strong> at <strong>the</strong> on-site<br />
registration desk dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Colloquium.<br />
Additionally, attendants are also required to register for <strong>the</strong> conference. There will be<br />
an on-site registration desk, but we encourage everybody to register onl<strong>in</strong>e (see<br />
below) to take advantage of a lower registration fee. Early registration will f<strong>in</strong>ish on<br />
Thursday, March 15. Onl<strong>in</strong>e registration can be completed at http://www.l<strong>in</strong>g.unipotsdam.de/%7Eglow/register.html#onl<strong>in</strong>e-registration.<br />
REGISTRATION FEES AND PAYMENT<br />
early registration<br />
(until March 15)<br />
5<br />
late registration<br />
(on site)<br />
d<strong>in</strong>ner/party<br />
Faculty €60 €70 €25<br />
Students €40 €50 €25<br />
Colloquium speakers free free €25
Attendants register<strong>in</strong>g before March 15 are strongly encouraged to transfer <strong>the</strong><br />
required amount of money to <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g bank account before <strong>the</strong> start of <strong>the</strong><br />
conference (March 27). Please write GLOW 35 registration: [your name] <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
reference field, so that we can match <strong>the</strong> money to your name.<br />
� Bank: WestLB Düsseldorf<br />
� Account holder: Landeshauptkasse<br />
� Account no.: 7110402844<br />
� IBAN: DE 09 3005 0000 7110 402844<br />
� BIC/SWIFT: WELADEDDXXX<br />
� Bankleitzahl: (for transfers with<strong>in</strong> Germany only) 300 500 00<br />
Late and on-site payments are possible but dispreferred. Attendants register<strong>in</strong>g after<br />
March 15 will be able to pay (cash only) at <strong>the</strong> on-site registration desk.<br />
REIMBURSEMENT AND WAIVERS<br />
The registration fee is waived for Colloquium speakers only; this doesn't <strong>in</strong>clude<br />
workshop speakers or poster presenters.<br />
Colloquium speakers will also be partially reimbursed for travel and accommodation<br />
expenses, to <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g amounts:<br />
reimbursement<br />
Europe, Faculty € 200<br />
Europe, Students € 250<br />
Overseas, Faculty € 350<br />
Overseas, Students € 450<br />
TRAVEL INFORMATION<br />
Gett<strong>in</strong>g to Potsdam<br />
Potsdam is a relatively small town located <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> southwestern part of <strong>the</strong><br />
Berl<strong>in</strong>/Brandenburg Metropolitan Region. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> best option for <strong>the</strong> majority<br />
of attendants will be to travel to Berl<strong>in</strong> and <strong>the</strong>n use local transportation to reach<br />
Potsdam.<br />
Berl<strong>in</strong> is serviced by two airports: Tegel (TXL) for major flag carriers, and Schönefeld<br />
(SFX) for low-fare airl<strong>in</strong>es. The common website for both is www.berl<strong>in</strong>-airport.de. As<br />
an alternative to fly<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> tra<strong>in</strong> station <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> (Berl<strong>in</strong> Hauptbahnhof) has<br />
connections with several major cities <strong>in</strong> both Germany and Central/Eastern Europe.<br />
Once <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong>re are two options for reach<strong>in</strong>g your hotel:<br />
6
� Public transportation: a number of bus, subway and tra<strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>es connect both<br />
airports and Berl<strong>in</strong> Hauptbahnhof (Berl<strong>in</strong> Hbf) to locations <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> and<br />
Potsdam. If you plan on tak<strong>in</strong>g public transportation to your f<strong>in</strong>al dest<strong>in</strong>ation,<br />
please refer to <strong>the</strong> Public transit sub-section below.<br />
� Taxi: you will f<strong>in</strong>d taxi stops outside both airports and major tra<strong>in</strong> stations. The<br />
official base fare is €3.20, plus €1.65/km for <strong>the</strong> first 7 km, and €1.28/km<br />
<strong>the</strong>reafter.<br />
Public transit <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> and Potsdam<br />
Both Berl<strong>in</strong> and Potsdam have dense public transportation networks. We recommend<br />
you consult <strong>the</strong> route planner at www.bvg.de to plan your trips. Smartphone users can<br />
access this functionality through mobil.bvg.de, or alternatively download <strong>the</strong> free apps<br />
FahrInfo Berl<strong>in</strong> (iPhone) or Öffi (Android).<br />
Berl<strong>in</strong> and Potsdam both have <strong>the</strong>ir own zone-based network (full-size maps available<br />
on <strong>the</strong> conference website), parts of which overlap. Specifically, <strong>the</strong> station next to <strong>the</strong><br />
conference venue (Griebnitzsee) is located <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> Zone C and Potsdam Zone B.<br />
Note that nei<strong>the</strong>r network offers a s<strong>in</strong>gle-zone ticket. Therefore, if you are com<strong>in</strong>g<br />
from Potsdam, you will need an AB ticket; if you are com<strong>in</strong>g from Berl<strong>in</strong>, you will need<br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r a BC ticket or an ABC ticket. Current prices for some ticket options are as<br />
follows:<br />
Berl<strong>in</strong><br />
BC ABC<br />
Short trip €1.40<br />
S<strong>in</strong>gle trip €2.70 €3.00<br />
Day ticket €6.60 €6.80<br />
7-day ticket €27.20 €28.00<br />
Potsdam<br />
The short trip (Kurzstrecke) option only allows a trip of up to three tra<strong>in</strong> stations (on<br />
<strong>the</strong> S-Bahn and U-Bahn l<strong>in</strong>es) or up to six bus/tram stops; <strong>the</strong>refore, it is not an option<br />
unless your accommodation is relatively close to <strong>the</strong> conference venue. S<strong>in</strong>gle trip<br />
tickets are valid for 60 m<strong>in</strong>utes (Potsdam) and 2 hours (Berl<strong>in</strong>) after validation, and<br />
with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se time w<strong>in</strong>dows <strong>the</strong>y allow unlimited transfers between <strong>the</strong> bus, tram, and<br />
tra<strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>es of <strong>the</strong>ir respective networks. Day tickets and 7-day tickets allow unlimited<br />
travel dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir validity period.<br />
7<br />
AB<br />
Short trip €1.30<br />
S<strong>in</strong>gle trip €1.80<br />
Day ticket €3.90<br />
7-day ticket €11.90
ACCOMMODATION<br />
The Berl<strong>in</strong>/Potsdam area offers ample accommodation options, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g both hotels<br />
and <strong>in</strong>expensive hostels (please see <strong>the</strong> conference website for l<strong>in</strong>ks). Additionally,<br />
reduced conference rates were secured at <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g places, as published on our<br />
website. Note, however, that many of <strong>the</strong> special offers will have already expired by<br />
<strong>the</strong> time of publication of this newsletter.<br />
� Gästehaus Bass<strong>in</strong> (Potsdam)<br />
Brandenburger Straße 37 (corner with Am Bass<strong>in</strong>)<br />
14476 Potsdam.<br />
Tel: +49 331 581 3222<br />
Fax: +49 331 581 3223<br />
<strong>in</strong>fo@hochdrei.org<br />
The guesthouse offers four double roo<strong>ms</strong>, two 3-bed roo<strong>ms</strong>, and one 4-bed<br />
room (no s<strong>in</strong>gle roo<strong>ms</strong>). The price per person/night is significantly lower than<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r accommodation options. To book a bed, please contact <strong>the</strong> guesthouse<br />
management directly.<br />
� Motel One (Berl<strong>in</strong>)<br />
Kantstraße 10<br />
10623 Berl<strong>in</strong><br />
Tel: +49 30 315 1736-0<br />
Fax: +49 30 315 1736-10<br />
berl<strong>in</strong>-kudamm@motel-one.com<br />
We have made a reservation for 50 s<strong>in</strong>gle roo<strong>ms</strong>. The room price person/night<br />
is €59 from March 26 to March 29, and €79 from March 30 to April 1. These<br />
prices do not <strong>in</strong>clude breakfast (€7.50). Although this hotel is located <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>,<br />
<strong>the</strong> journey time to <strong>the</strong> conference venue is only 25 m<strong>in</strong>utes, us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> S7 tra<strong>in</strong><br />
l<strong>in</strong>e from <strong>the</strong> adjacent Zoologischer Garten station.<br />
To book a room, pr<strong>in</strong>t and fill out <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g form and return it to <strong>the</strong> hotel<br />
by email or fax before February 13, 2012:<br />
http://www.l<strong>in</strong>g.uni-potsdam.de/~glow/motel-one-book<strong>in</strong>g.pdf<br />
� Best Western Grand City Parkhotel (Potsdam)<br />
Fortstraße 80<br />
14471 Potsdam<br />
Tel: +49 331 98120<br />
Fax: +49 331 9812100<br />
<strong>in</strong>fo@parkhotel-potsdam.bestwestern.de<br />
We have made a reservation for 40 s<strong>in</strong>gle roo<strong>ms</strong>. The room price per<br />
8
person/night is €78, breakfast <strong>in</strong>cluded. This hotel is located <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> vic<strong>in</strong>ity of<br />
Schloss Sanssouci <strong>in</strong> Potsdam, and <strong>the</strong> journey time to <strong>the</strong> conference site is<br />
about 25-30 m<strong>in</strong>utes us<strong>in</strong>g public transportation.<br />
To book a room, contact <strong>the</strong> hotel directly and cite "GLOW". Reservations have<br />
to be made before February 20, 2012.<br />
� Steigenberger Hotel Sanssouci (Potsdam)<br />
Allee nach Sanssouci 1<br />
14471 Potsdam<br />
Tel: +49 331 9091-0<br />
Fax: +49 331 9091-903/909<br />
potsdam@steigenberger.de<br />
The special GLOW rates are €85 p.p.p.n. (s<strong>in</strong>gle room) and €115 p.p.p.n.<br />
(double room), both options <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g buffet breakfast. To make a reservation,<br />
fill <strong>in</strong> a registration form (<strong>in</strong> German or English) and send it to <strong>the</strong> hotel no later<br />
than February 17.<br />
English form: http://www.l<strong>in</strong>g.unipotsdam.de/%7Eglow/images/steigenberger-en.pdf<br />
German form: http://www.l<strong>in</strong>g.unipotsdam.de/%7Eglow/images/steigenberger-de.pdf<br />
� Filmhotel "Lili Marleen" (Potsdam)<br />
Großbeerenstraße 75 (corner with Walter-Klausch-Str.)<br />
14482 Potsdam-Babelsberg<br />
Tel: +49 331 743 200<br />
Fax: +49 331 743 2018<br />
filmhotel@potsdam.de<br />
We have reserved 30 s<strong>in</strong>gle roo<strong>ms</strong> at a €45 p.p.p.n. rate. To make your<br />
reservation, contact <strong>the</strong> hotel management directly before February 13.<br />
� Altstadt Hotel (Potsdam)<br />
Dortustraße 9-10<br />
14467 Potsdam<br />
Tel: +49 331 284 990<br />
Fax: +49 331 284 9903<br />
altstadthotel@tnp-onl<strong>in</strong>e.de<br />
We have reserved 20 s<strong>in</strong>gle roo<strong>ms</strong> at a rate of €58 p.p.p.n. To make a<br />
reservation, contact <strong>the</strong> hotel management directly before February 15.<br />
9
CONFERENCE DINNER AND PARTY<br />
This year’s conference d<strong>in</strong>ner and party will take place after <strong>the</strong> talks on Thursday 29th<br />
March at <strong>the</strong> club Die Fabrik, located at Schiffbauergasse 10, Potsdam. The price,<br />
which <strong>in</strong>cludes a buffet-style d<strong>in</strong>ner, is €25. If you plan to attend, please <strong>in</strong>dicate this <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> onl<strong>in</strong>e registration form on <strong>the</strong> conference website.<br />
The club can be reached by tak<strong>in</strong>g Tram 99 (for a timetable, please see <strong>the</strong> conference<br />
website) from Potsdam Hauptbahnhof and gett<strong>in</strong>g off at Schiffbauergasse/Uferweg.<br />
DAY CARE<br />
In collaboration with <strong>the</strong> Studentenwerk of <strong>the</strong> University of Potsdam, we will offer a<br />
day-care center from Tuesday to Saturday for <strong>the</strong> children of conference participants.<br />
Children must be registered for day care before March 5. Please contact<br />
boethke@googlemail.com and <strong>in</strong>dicate <strong>the</strong> age and language (English/German) of <strong>the</strong><br />
children you wish to register.<br />
CONTACT INFORMATION<br />
For fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>formation, please consult <strong>the</strong> GLOW 35 Potsdam website<br />
(http://www.l<strong>in</strong>g.uni-potsdam.de/~glow/), or contact <strong>the</strong> local organizers at:<br />
GLOW 35<br />
Department L<strong>in</strong>guistik<br />
Universität Potsdam<br />
Karl Liebknechtstraße 24-25<br />
14476 Golm<br />
Germany<br />
glow.35.potsdam@gmail.com<br />
SELECTION PROCEDURE<br />
A total of 102 abstracts were submitted for <strong>the</strong> Ma<strong>in</strong> Colloquium (not count<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
workshops). From <strong>the</strong>se, 19 were selected for oral presentation, with two alternates<br />
(one of <strong>the</strong> alternates was upgraded to oral presentation before <strong>the</strong> publication of <strong>the</strong><br />
program). The acceptance rate for oral presentations and alternates is thus 20.6%.<br />
However, given that this year’s Colloquium also features two poster sessions, <strong>the</strong><br />
overall acceptance rate is substantially higher than for previous GLOWs (34.3%).<br />
Each of <strong>the</strong> 102 abstracts was sent to three external reviewers (who did not <strong>in</strong>clude<br />
local organizers or GLOW Board members), and <strong>the</strong> reviews were returned before <strong>the</strong><br />
10
w<strong>in</strong>ter holidays. The 102 abstracts were ranked by <strong>the</strong> mean of <strong>the</strong> grades given by <strong>the</strong><br />
reviewers. A selection committee of three representatives of <strong>the</strong> GLOW Board and<br />
three representatives of <strong>the</strong> local organizers considered and discussed <strong>in</strong> detail (a) <strong>the</strong><br />
best fifty abstracts, (b) those abstracts for which <strong>the</strong> grades given by <strong>the</strong> reviewers<br />
diverged substantially and, fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, (c) any abstract a selection committee<br />
member wanted to be discussed. The abstracts were discussed one by one. On <strong>the</strong><br />
basis of <strong>the</strong> reviewers’ comments and <strong>the</strong> assessments by <strong>the</strong> six committee members,<br />
19 abstracts were identified for presentation at <strong>the</strong> Colloquium, and 19 abstracts were<br />
selected for poster presentations. Of <strong>the</strong> latter, two were selected as alternate<br />
presentations for <strong>the</strong> Colloquium.<br />
STATISTICS BY COUNTRY<br />
country authors submitted accepted acceptance Committee<br />
rate members<br />
Belgium 4 2.50 0.00 0.00 –<br />
Canada 11 9.00 1.00 0.11 –<br />
France 4 3.00 0.00 0.00 1<br />
Germany 27 16.50 4.00 0.24 4<br />
Greece 1 0.50 0.50 1.00 –<br />
Israel 1 0.33 0.00 0.00 –<br />
Italy 6 3.50 1.00 0.29 –<br />
Japan 2 1.33 0.33 0.25 –<br />
Korea, Republic 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 –<br />
of<br />
Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands 12 8.50 2.00 0.24 1<br />
Norway 5 4.00 0.00 0.00 –<br />
Poland 2 2.00 0.00 0.00 –<br />
Romania 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 –<br />
Russian 3 2.50 0.00 0.00 –<br />
Federation<br />
S<strong>in</strong>gapore 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 –<br />
Spa<strong>in</strong> 4 2.50 0.00 0.00 –<br />
Sweden 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 –<br />
Switzerland 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 –<br />
United K<strong>in</strong>gdom 5 5.00 1.00 0.20 –<br />
United States 47 35.83 9.17 0.26 –<br />
totals 139 102 19 – 6<br />
11
GLOW 35 COLLOQUIUM PROGRAM: MARCH 28-30, CAMPUS GRIEBNITZSEE, HAUS 6<br />
Wednesday, March 28<br />
08:00–09:00 Registration<br />
09:00–09:15 Welcome and announcements<br />
09:15–10:15 Uli Sauerland (ZAS) & Jonathan Bobaljik (UConn)<br />
Syncretism distribution model<strong>in</strong>g and person paradig<strong>ms</strong>.<br />
10:15–11:15 Ia<strong>in</strong> Gibl<strong>in</strong> (MIT)<br />
Long distance anaphora <strong>in</strong> Mandar<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong> PCC, and Cyclic Agree.<br />
11:15–11:30 Coffee break<br />
11:30–12:30 Poster session<br />
Mohamed Lahrouchi (CNRS/Paris 8): Phasal spell out and <strong>the</strong> glide: high<br />
vowel alternation <strong>in</strong> Berber.<br />
Peter Svenonius (Tro<strong>ms</strong>ø/CASTL): North Sámi pronouns.<br />
Jacopo Torregrossa (Verona): Encod<strong>in</strong>g contrast at PF.<br />
Bethany Lochbihler (McGill): F<strong>in</strong>al and non-f<strong>in</strong>al phase status.<br />
Krist<strong>in</strong>e Bentzen (Tro<strong>ms</strong>ø/CASTL) & Merete Anderssen (Tro<strong>ms</strong>ø):<br />
Discourse effects on <strong>the</strong> availability of Object Shift.<br />
Laura Kal<strong>in</strong> (UCLA) & Coppe van Urk (MIT): A novel aspect split <strong>in</strong><br />
Senaya.<br />
Ad Neeleman & Hans van de Koot (UCL): The l<strong>in</strong>guistic expression of<br />
causation.<br />
Ezra Keshet (Michigan): Scopal effects of embedded coherence<br />
relations.<br />
12:30–13:30 Lunch break<br />
13:30–14:30 Antje Lahne (Konstanz)<br />
Locality <strong>in</strong> agreement: a new approach.<br />
14:30–15:30 Yanyan Sui (NYU)<br />
Metrical structure prom<strong>in</strong>ence vs. perceived prom<strong>in</strong>ence <strong>in</strong> Standard<br />
Ch<strong>in</strong>ese.<br />
15:30–15:45 Coffee break<br />
15:45–16:45 Ewan Dunbar (Maryland), Brian Dillon (UMass Amherst) & William<br />
Idsardi (Maryland)<br />
Learn<strong>in</strong>g phonetic categories by learn<strong>in</strong>g allophony and vice versa.<br />
15:00–15:30 Roberta D’Alessandro & Marc van Oostendorp (Leiden)<br />
Cyclic syntax mirrors cyclic morphology: Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Italian vocatives <strong>in</strong><br />
context.<br />
12
Thursday, March 29<br />
09:00–10:00 Anke Assmann, Doreen Georgi, Fabian Heck, Gereon Müller & Philipp<br />
Weisser (Leipzig)<br />
Ergatives move too early.<br />
10:00–11:00 Ivona Kučerová (McMaster)<br />
Case <strong>in</strong>dependence and split ergativity: towards a unified account of<br />
Case assignment.<br />
11:00–11:15 Coffee break<br />
11:15–12:15 Poster session<br />
Marta Abrusan (Gött<strong>in</strong>gen) & Kriszta Szendrői (UCL): Experiment<strong>in</strong>g<br />
with <strong>the</strong> K<strong>in</strong>g of France: topics, verifiability, and def<strong>in</strong>ite descriptions.<br />
Timothy Leffel (NYU): Non-restrictive adjectives and <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of scalar<br />
implicature.<br />
Michael Freedman (Yale): Contextual disambiguation of havesentences.<br />
Stavroula Alexandropoulou & Bert le Bruyn (Utrecht): Inalienable<br />
possession: a semantic/pragmatic take.<br />
Francesca Foppolo (Milano-Bicocca), Marco Marelli (Milano-Bicocca),<br />
Luisa Meroni (Utrecht) & Andrea Gualm<strong>in</strong>i (Utrecht): Pars<strong>in</strong>g semantic<br />
ambiguity: strategies and commitments.<br />
Lucas Champollion (Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen): Temporal dependencies: anaphora vs.<br />
movement.<br />
Rebekah Bagl<strong>in</strong>i (Chicago): Reduced clausal structure <strong>in</strong> comparatives:<br />
evidence from Wolof.<br />
12:15–13:15 Lunch break<br />
13:15–14:15 Claire Halpert (MIT)<br />
Structural Case and <strong>the</strong> nature of vP <strong>in</strong> Zulu.<br />
14:15–15:15 Masaya Yoshida (Northwestern), Chizuru Nakao (Daito Bunka) & Iván<br />
Ortega-Santos (Memphis)<br />
On ellipsis structures <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g a wh-remnant and a non-wh-remnant<br />
simultaneously.<br />
15:15–15:30 Coffee break<br />
15:30–16:30 Andreas Blümel (Frankfurt)<br />
Successive-cyclic movement as <strong>in</strong>termediate labell<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>determ<strong>in</strong>acies.<br />
16:30–17:30 Hadas Kotek (MIT)<br />
Wh-front<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a two-probe system.<br />
17:30–18:30 Bus<strong>in</strong>ess meet<strong>in</strong>g<br />
from 19:00 D<strong>in</strong>ner and party at “Die Fabrik”<br />
13
Friday, March 30<br />
09:00–10:00 Stephen Wechsler (Texas)<br />
Conjunct morphology marks property self-ascription.<br />
10:00–11:00 Artemis Alexiadou (Stuttgart) & Elena Anagnostopoulou (Crete)<br />
Verb mean<strong>in</strong>g, local context, and <strong>the</strong> syntax of roots <strong>in</strong> alternations.<br />
11:00–11:15 Coffee break<br />
11:15–12:15 Kriszta Szendrői (UCL)<br />
Block<strong>in</strong>g quantifier rais<strong>in</strong>g by passives.<br />
12:15–13:15 Lunch break<br />
13:15–14:15 Valent<strong>in</strong>a Bianchi (Siena) & Mara Frascarelli (Roma III)<br />
On how to be rooted <strong>in</strong> a context.<br />
14:15–15:15 Bronwyn M. Bjorkman (Northwestern) & Claire Halpert (MIT)<br />
In search of (im)perfection: <strong>the</strong> illusion of counterfactual aspect.<br />
15:15–15:45 Coffee break<br />
15:45–16:45 Luisa Meroni & Andrea Gualm<strong>in</strong>i (Utrecht)<br />
Do you know all SI? I know some. Context-dependence of children’s<br />
computation of SIs.<br />
16:45–17:45 Kai von F<strong>in</strong>tel (MIT), Danny Fox (Hebrew U./MIT) & Sab<strong>in</strong>e Iatridou<br />
(MIT)<br />
Def<strong>in</strong>iteness as maximal <strong>in</strong>formativeness.<br />
17:45–18:00 Thanks and goodbye<br />
14
GLOW 33 WORKSHOP PROGRAMS I<br />
Workshop 1:<br />
The tim<strong>in</strong>g of grammar: experimental and <strong>the</strong>oretical considerations<br />
Tuesday 27th March<br />
Campus Griebnitzsee, Haus 6<br />
08:50–09:00 Welcome and announcements<br />
09:00–10:00 Invited speaker: Patrick Sturt (Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh)<br />
The tim<strong>in</strong>g of dependency formation: state of <strong>the</strong> art and future<br />
challenges.<br />
10:00–10:30 Coffee break<br />
10:30–11:00 Arnout Koornneef & Eric Reuland (Utrecht)<br />
Grammar and process<strong>in</strong>g economy.<br />
11:00–11:30 Dave Kush (Maryland)<br />
On-l<strong>in</strong>e use of relational structural <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g anaphora:<br />
evidence from English and H<strong>in</strong>di.<br />
11:30–12:00 Kaili Clackson (Essex), Vera Heyer (Potsdam) & Harald Clahsen<br />
(Potsdam)<br />
Onl<strong>in</strong>e application of b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g pr<strong>in</strong>ciples A and B: evidence from eye<br />
movements dur<strong>in</strong>g listen<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
12:00–13:00 Lunch break<br />
14:00–15:00 Poster session<br />
Sofiana Chiriacescu (Stuttgart): Focus<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite noun phrases <strong>in</strong><br />
German and English: consequences of reference form on subsequent<br />
discourse.<br />
Charles L<strong>in</strong> (Indiana): Typological perspectives on relative clause<br />
process<strong>in</strong>g: <strong>the</strong>matic mapp<strong>in</strong>g, case markedness, filler-gap <strong>in</strong>tegrations,<br />
and <strong>the</strong>ir relative tim<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Sophia Manika, Sergey Avrut<strong>in</strong> & Eric Reuland (Utrecht): The bits of<br />
dependencies.<br />
Bart Hollebrandse, Petra Hendriks & Jacolien van Rij (Gron<strong>in</strong>gen): Eye<br />
gaze patterns reveal subtle discourse effects on object pronoun<br />
resolution.<br />
Laura Kertz (Brown): Referential process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>fluences <strong>the</strong> resolution of<br />
verbal anaphors.<br />
Megan Sutton, Michael Fetters & Jeffrey Lidz (Maryland): Pars<strong>in</strong>g for<br />
Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C at 30 months.<br />
15
Jana Häussler (Potsdam) & Markus Bader (Frankfurt): When Maria is<br />
considered to be he. Gender mismatch effects dur<strong>in</strong>g pronoun<br />
resolution.<br />
14:00–14:30 Umesh Patil (Potsdam), Shravan Vasishth (Potsdam) & Richard Lewis<br />
(Michigan)<br />
Early effect of retrieval <strong>in</strong>terference on reflexive b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
14:30–15:00 Ian Cunn<strong>in</strong>gs & Patrick Sturt (Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh)<br />
The time-course of reference resolution <strong>in</strong> picture noun phrases:<br />
evidence from eye movements dur<strong>in</strong>g read<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
15:00–15:30 Clare Patterson & Claudia Felser (Potsdam)<br />
Syntactic constra<strong>in</strong>ts on <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of pronouns.<br />
15:30–16:00 Coffee break<br />
16:00–16:30 Shevaun Lewis & W<strong>in</strong>g Yee Chow (Maryland)<br />
Structural constra<strong>in</strong>ts on pronoun resolution: dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g early and<br />
late sensitivity to illicit antecedents.<br />
16:30–17:00 Daniel Parker & Sol Lago (Maryland)<br />
Retrieval <strong>in</strong>terference <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> resolution of anaphoric PRO.<br />
17:00–17:30 Leticia Pablos, Bobby Ruijgrok, Jenny Doetjes & Lisa Cheng (Leiden)<br />
Process<strong>in</strong>g cataphoric pronouns <strong>in</strong> Dutch: an ERP study.<br />
17:30–18:00 Tea break<br />
18:00–18:30 Mat<strong>the</strong>w Wagers (UC Santa Cruz), Manuel Borja (Inetnon Amot yan<br />
Kutturan Natibu) & Sandra Chung (UC Santa Cruz)<br />
Wh-agreement and <strong>the</strong> tim<strong>in</strong>g of unbounded dependency formation: a<br />
Chamorro perspective on <strong>in</strong>crementality and accuracy <strong>in</strong> language<br />
comprehension.<br />
18:30–19:00 Bruno Nicemboim (Potsdam)<br />
Process<strong>in</strong>g Complex NP Islands <strong>in</strong> Hebrew.<br />
19:00 End of workshop<br />
16
GLOW 33 WORKSHOP PROGRAMS II<br />
Workshop 2:<br />
Production and perception of prosodically-encoded Information<br />
Structure<br />
Tuesday 27th March<br />
Campus Griebnitzsee, Haus 6<br />
09:00–09:15 Welcome and announcements<br />
09:15–10:00 Stefan Baumann (Köln)<br />
Types of secondary prom<strong>in</strong>ence and <strong>the</strong>ir relation to Information<br />
Structure.<br />
10:00–10:30 Coffee break<br />
10:30–11:15 Jason Bishop (UCLA)<br />
Information structure, prosodic prom<strong>in</strong>ence, and <strong>in</strong>dividual differences:<br />
evidence from onl<strong>in</strong>e process<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
11:15–12:00 Peng Zhou, Stephen Cra<strong>in</strong> & Likan Zhan (Macquarie)<br />
Children’s pragmatic use of prosody <strong>in</strong> sentence process<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
12:00–13:00 Lunch break<br />
13:00–14:00 Poster session<br />
14:00–14:45 Alexandre Delf<strong>in</strong>o, Maria Luiza Cunha Lima & Pablo Arantes<br />
(Universidade Federal de M<strong>in</strong>as Gerais)<br />
Prosodic mark<strong>in</strong>g of referential status <strong>in</strong> Brazilian Portuguese.<br />
14:45–15:30 Tania Leal Méndez & Christ<strong>in</strong>e Shea (Iowa)<br />
L1 and L2 Mexican Spanish and Information Structure: P-movement or<br />
<strong>in</strong>-situ prosody?<br />
15:30–16:00 Coffee break<br />
16:00–16:45 Summary and discussion<br />
17
GLOW 33 WORKSHOP PROGRAMS III<br />
Workshop 3: Empty categories <strong>in</strong> syntax<br />
Saturday 31st March<br />
Campus Griebnitzsee, Haus 6<br />
08:50–09:00 Welcome and announcements<br />
09:00–10:00 Invited speaker: Ivan Sag (Stanford)<br />
t.b.a.<br />
10:00–11:00 Tim Hunter & Robert Frank (Yale)<br />
Elim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g rightward movement: extraposition as flexible l<strong>in</strong>earization<br />
of adjuncts.<br />
11:00–11:15 Coffee break<br />
11:15–12:15 Anke Assmann & Fabian Heck (Leipzig)<br />
Opaque <strong>in</strong>tervention <strong>in</strong> German scrambl<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
12:15–13:45 Lunch break<br />
13:45–14:45 Invited speaker: Ad Neeleman (UCL)<br />
“e”<br />
14:45–15:45 Rita Manz<strong>in</strong>i (Firenze) & Anna Roussou (Patras)<br />
Empty categories: empty operators and variables at <strong>the</strong> LF <strong>in</strong>terface.<br />
15:45–16:00 Coffee break<br />
16:00–17:00 Terje Lohndal (Maryland) & Bridget Samuels (CalTech)<br />
On how null elements and unpronounced copies are different.<br />
17:00–18:00 Hsu-Te Cheng (UConn)<br />
Ellipsis: its correlates with phase and movement.<br />
18:00–19:00 Artemis Alexiadou & Florian Schäfer (Stuttgart)<br />
Naturally reflexive verbs revisited.<br />
19:00 End of workshop<br />
Alternates:<br />
Chris Laterza (Maryland): Gaps with silence.<br />
Coppe van Urk (MIT): On <strong>the</strong> nature of control.<br />
18
GLOW 33 WORKSHOP PROGRAMS IV<br />
Workshop 4: Association with focus<br />
Saturday 31st March<br />
Campus Griebnitzsee, Haus 6<br />
09:00–09:15 Welcome and open<strong>in</strong>g remarks<br />
09:15–10:15 Keynote speaker: David Beaver (U. Texas, Aust<strong>in</strong>)<br />
t.b.a.<br />
10:15–11:00 Elizabeth Coppock (Lund) & David Beaver (U. Texas, Aust<strong>in</strong>)<br />
NPI licens<strong>in</strong>g by exceptives: just scope could expla<strong>in</strong> it.<br />
11:00–11:15 Coffee break<br />
11:15–12:00 Michael Yoshitaka Erlew<strong>in</strong>e (MIT)<br />
Association with traces and <strong>the</strong> copy <strong>the</strong>ory of movement.<br />
12:00–13:30 Lunch break<br />
13:30–14:15 Satoshi Tomioka (Delaware)<br />
Focus matters <strong>in</strong> Neo-Hambl<strong>in</strong> semantics.<br />
14:15–15:00 Daniel Gutzmann (Frankfurt) & Kathar<strong>in</strong>a Hartmann (Humboldt)<br />
Dissociat<strong>in</strong>g verum from focus.<br />
15:00–15:45 Noah Constant (UMass Amherst)<br />
Topic abstraction as <strong>the</strong> source for nested alternatives: a conservative<br />
semantics for contrastive topic.<br />
15:45–16:00 Coffee break<br />
16:00–16:45 Luka Crnic (Hebrew University)<br />
Scalar particles and competition.<br />
16:45–17:30 Yael Greenberg & Keren Khrizman (Bar Ilan)<br />
Bixlal: a general streng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g operator <strong>in</strong> Hebrew.<br />
17:30–18:15 Barbara Tomaszewicz (USC)<br />
A family of exclusives <strong>in</strong> Polish.<br />
18:15–19:00 Clos<strong>in</strong>g remarks<br />
19:00 End of workshop<br />
19
Marta Abrusan (Gött<strong>in</strong>gen) & Kriszta Szendrői (UCL)<br />
Experiment<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>the</strong> K<strong>in</strong>g of France: topics, verifiability and def<strong>in</strong>ite descriptions<br />
1. Theoretical situation The Fregean position is widely accepted <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> semantics literature:<br />
def<strong>in</strong>ite descriptions trigger an existential presupposition (Heim & Kratzer 1998). However, this<br />
existential presupposition see<strong>ms</strong> not to appear equally strongly <strong>in</strong> every sentence (Strawson 1969,<br />
Re<strong>in</strong>hart 1981, von F<strong>in</strong>tel 2004, etc.). E.g. accord<strong>in</strong>g to Strawson, <strong>in</strong> a context where it is known<br />
that France has no k<strong>in</strong>g, (1a) is felt as “nei<strong>the</strong>r false nor true”, but (1b) is judged as simply false.<br />
(1) a. The k<strong>in</strong>g of France is bald. b. The exhibition was visited yesterday by <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g of France.<br />
The solution of Strawson (1969) (also Re<strong>in</strong>hart 1981) was that def<strong>in</strong>ite descriptions trigger an<br />
existential presupposition only <strong>in</strong> topic position. The NP ‘<strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g of France’ is <strong>in</strong> topic position<br />
<strong>in</strong> (1a) but not <strong>in</strong> (1b). Thus (1a) but not (1b) leads to a presupposition failure. Lasersohn (1993)<br />
and von F<strong>in</strong>tel (2004) dismissed <strong>the</strong> importance of topichood and argued that ra<strong>the</strong>r than<br />
topicality, verifiability is important: If a sentence conta<strong>in</strong>s an <strong>in</strong>dependent NP such that <strong>the</strong><br />
sentence could be verified based on <strong>the</strong> properties of this NP, speakers might have enough<br />
grounds to accept or reject <strong>the</strong> sentence whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong> presupposition of <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite<br />
description is satisfied. This happens <strong>in</strong> The k<strong>in</strong>g of France is sitt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> this chair, where <strong>the</strong> sentence<br />
could be verified based on <strong>the</strong> properties of <strong>the</strong> chair. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, as von F<strong>in</strong>tel (2004) has shown, <strong>in</strong><br />
some cases even def<strong>in</strong>ite descriptions that are uncontroversially topics do not seem to trigger <strong>the</strong><br />
“squeamishness” associated with presupposition failure: Let me tell you about my friend, <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
France. I had breakfast with him this morn<strong>in</strong>g. Thus accord<strong>in</strong>g to both Lasersohn and von F<strong>in</strong>tel,<br />
def<strong>in</strong>ite descriptions always trigger an existential presupposition, hence all <strong>the</strong> above examples<br />
<strong>in</strong>volve a presupposition failure. But if <strong>the</strong> speaker has <strong>in</strong>dependent footholds for verification, he<br />
might judge <strong>the</strong> sentence as false.<br />
2. Summary of <strong>the</strong> experiment and results All <strong>the</strong> data <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> above papers are based on <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>tuitions of <strong>the</strong> authors. We designed an experiment to verify <strong>the</strong> alleged differences between <strong>the</strong><br />
various (local) l<strong>in</strong>guistic contexts and to test <strong>the</strong> predictions of <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ories. We found that <strong>the</strong><br />
situation is more complex than appears from any of <strong>the</strong> above papers. Both topicality and<br />
verifiability is a factor <strong>in</strong> its own right. We also discuss how to reconcile <strong>the</strong>se seem<strong>in</strong>gly divergent<br />
factors. We dist<strong>in</strong>guish two concepts: topic, what <strong>the</strong> sentence is pragmatically about, and what we<br />
call pivot, which is <strong>the</strong> constituent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sentence based on which <strong>the</strong> sentence is verified. We<br />
propose, follow<strong>in</strong>g Lasersohn (1993) and von F<strong>in</strong>tel (2004), that verifiability is <strong>the</strong> primary factor<br />
that <strong>in</strong>for<strong>ms</strong> pragmatic truth value <strong>in</strong>tuitions: <strong>in</strong> particular we suggest that sentences are verified<br />
based on <strong>the</strong>ir pivots. The topic-effect noticed by Strawson and Re<strong>in</strong>hart comes about because<br />
topics are default pivots. Overall, our data suggests <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g picture: We should comb<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong><br />
pragmatic <strong>in</strong>sights of <strong>the</strong> various Strawsonian <strong>the</strong>ories with a bivalent, but presuppositional<br />
approach to def<strong>in</strong>ite descriptions, such as that of Stalnaker (1974, 1978).<br />
3. The experimental setup We tested 33 native speakers of English (mostly British English),<br />
aged 22-55. The participants first read <strong>in</strong>structions on <strong>the</strong> computer screen, reproduced <strong>in</strong> (2).<br />
(2) In this experiment, statements will appear on your screen. If you th<strong>in</strong>k a statement is true, you should click on<br />
<strong>the</strong> 'TRUE' button. If you th<strong>in</strong>k a statement is false, you should click on <strong>the</strong> 'FALSE' button. Sometimes,<br />
it may happen that you cannot decide. In those cases, you should click on <strong>the</strong> 'CAN'T SAY' button. Please<br />
do not dwell on your decision for too long. There is no right or wrong answer!<br />
After a short practice session, <strong>the</strong>y were left alone with a program which presented <strong>the</strong> ite<strong>ms</strong><br />
described below one by one <strong>in</strong> pseudo-random order, 253 <strong>in</strong> total. An example of an item:<br />
The k<strong>in</strong>g of France is bald.<br />
FALSE CAN’T SAY TRUE<br />
1
The test ite<strong>ms</strong> were created by plac<strong>in</strong>g 8 def<strong>in</strong>ite descriptions that lack referents (listed <strong>in</strong> (3)) <strong>in</strong> 11<br />
sentential contexts, called test conditions, illustrated with ite<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g of France <strong>in</strong> (4).<br />
(3) <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g of France; <strong>the</strong> emperor of Canada; <strong>the</strong> Pope’s wife; Pr<strong>in</strong>cess Diana’s daughter; <strong>the</strong> beaches of<br />
Birm<strong>in</strong>gham; <strong>the</strong> Belgian ra<strong>in</strong>forest; <strong>the</strong> coral reefs of Brighton; <strong>the</strong> volcanoes of Kent.<br />
(4) C(ondition) 0 [ref. failure NP, no extra NP] The k<strong>in</strong>g of France is bald.<br />
C1 [no presupposition] France has a k<strong>in</strong>g and he is bald.<br />
C2 [von F<strong>in</strong>tel, <strong>in</strong>dep. unknown NP] The k<strong>in</strong>g of France is on a state visit to Australia this week.<br />
C3 [Lasersohn, <strong>in</strong>dep. known NP] The k<strong>in</strong>g of France is married to Carla Bruni.<br />
C4 [ref. failure NP <strong>in</strong> topic] The k<strong>in</strong>g of France, he was <strong>in</strong>vited to have d<strong>in</strong>ner with Sarkozy.<br />
C5 [ref. failure NP not <strong>in</strong> topic] Sarkozy, he was <strong>in</strong>vited to have d<strong>in</strong>ner with <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g of France.<br />
C6 [negation of 0] The k<strong>in</strong>g of France isn't bald.<br />
C7 [negation of 2] The k<strong>in</strong>g of France is not on a state visit to Australia this week.<br />
C8 [negation of 3] The k<strong>in</strong>g of France is not married to Carla Bruni.<br />
C9 [negation of 4] The k<strong>in</strong>g of France, he wasn’t <strong>in</strong>vited to have d<strong>in</strong>ner with Sarkozy.<br />
C10 [negation of 5] Sarkozy, he wasn’t <strong>in</strong>vited to have d<strong>in</strong>ner with <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g of France.<br />
C(ondition) 1 was <strong>in</strong>cluded to test that <strong>the</strong> participants did know that our tested def<strong>in</strong>ite<br />
descriptions were referentially challenged. The difference between C2 and C3 (and similarly<br />
between C7 and C8) was that <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> latter <strong>the</strong> participants were expected to have knowledge about<br />
<strong>the</strong> relevant properties of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dependent NP <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sentence (Carla Bruni, <strong>in</strong> C3 and C8 <strong>in</strong> (7)—<br />
this we call Lasersohn-effect), but <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> former <strong>the</strong>y were expected not to have such knowledge<br />
(Australia, <strong>in</strong> C2 and C7 <strong>in</strong> (7)—this we call <strong>the</strong> von F<strong>in</strong>tel-effect). The item list also conta<strong>in</strong>ed 165<br />
filler sentences, 8 of which were controls for <strong>the</strong> ite<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong> C3 and C8, i.e. <strong>the</strong> conditions that tested<br />
for <strong>the</strong> Lasersohn-effect. E.g., for C8 <strong>in</strong> (7), <strong>the</strong> control item was Carla Bruni is married to Sarkozy.<br />
4. Results We compared <strong>the</strong> proportion (%) at which subjects replied ‘False’ to <strong>the</strong> test ite<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
Conditions 0-5 with ANOVA, and also compared <strong>the</strong> proportion (%) at which subjects replied<br />
‘True’ to <strong>the</strong> test ite<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong> Conditions 6-10. We found only weak or nearly significant differences<br />
between any of <strong>the</strong> conditions 0-5, i.e. <strong>the</strong> positive conditions; our subjects said ‘False’ to most of<br />
<strong>the</strong>se most of <strong>the</strong> time. However, we found clear significant differences among <strong>the</strong> negative<br />
conditions: As Figure 1 shows, we found that speakers responded ‘True’ at a significantly higher<br />
proportion to <strong>the</strong> ite<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong> C7, C8, C9 and C10 than to <strong>the</strong> ite<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong> C6 (p
Stavroula Alexandropoulou & Bert le Bruyn (Utrecht)<br />
Inalienable possession: a semantic take<br />
In most analyses of <strong>in</strong>alienable possession <strong>in</strong> French (see 1) it is standard to assume that <strong>the</strong><br />
def<strong>in</strong>ite article is simply not <strong>the</strong>re (e.g. Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1992) or that it is some k<strong>in</strong>d of<br />
pronoun (e.g. Guéron 1985). We ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> that expletive analyses should be a last resort option<br />
and that pronom<strong>in</strong>al analyses only make sense if we can show that <strong>the</strong>re is some k<strong>in</strong>d of<br />
agreement between <strong>the</strong> anaphor and its antecedent. Given that this last condition is not met (see<br />
1) we propose an alternative semantic analysis under <strong>the</strong> assumption that <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite article is<br />
what it looks like: a def<strong>in</strong>ite article.<br />
(1) Je 1st person, masc/fem lève la fem ma<strong>in</strong>. (2) ??Jean lève sa ma<strong>in</strong>.<br />
I raise <strong>the</strong> hand Jean raises his hand<br />
‘I raise my hand’<br />
From a semantic viewpo<strong>in</strong>t, we face two challenges: (i) How come we can use a def<strong>in</strong>ite article <strong>in</strong><br />
this construction (despite <strong>the</strong> non-uniqueness of hands)?; (ii) Why don’t we use a possessive<br />
pronoun ra<strong>the</strong>r than a def<strong>in</strong>ite article (see 2) ? Given that <strong>the</strong> first challenge has been treated for<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r relational uses of <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite article (see e.g. Barker <strong>in</strong> press) we focus on (ii). We propose an<br />
analysis with a m<strong>in</strong>imum of stipulations that derives <strong>the</strong> facts for French as well as for English.<br />
The key to understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>alienable possession is that <strong>the</strong> possessum <strong>in</strong> this construction<br />
presupposes possession: a hand e.g. is always someone’s hand. This has two important<br />
consequences that lead to partially conflict<strong>in</strong>g requirements on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>alienable possession<br />
construction. We will exploit <strong>the</strong>se as constra<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> an OT account. The first consequence is that<br />
an <strong>in</strong>alienable possessum is def<strong>in</strong>ed only if we know who <strong>the</strong> possessor is. We <strong>the</strong>n expect<br />
speakers to make sure that <strong>the</strong>re is no doubt about who <strong>the</strong> possessor is. The most<br />
straightforward way to do so is to use a possessive pronoun. This leads a speaker to prefer (2)<br />
over (1). The second consequence is that <strong>the</strong> overt mark<strong>in</strong>g of possession is superfluous: given<br />
that possession is presupposed, it is uneconomic to mark it explicitly with a possessive pronoun<br />
that – due to <strong>the</strong> fact that it imposes a b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g relation – is syntactically more complex than a<br />
def<strong>in</strong>ite article. We consequently expect speakers to avoid us<strong>in</strong>g overt possessive pronouns and<br />
to prefer (1) over (2).<br />
In (3) we re<strong>in</strong>terpret <strong>the</strong> two consequences we have <strong>in</strong>troduced as an OT faithfulness and an OT<br />
markedness constra<strong>in</strong>t.<br />
(3) FaithPoss(essor):Make sure an <strong>in</strong>alienable possessum has a determ<strong>in</strong>ed possessor.<br />
D(on’t)U(se)P(ossessive)P(ronouns): Don’t use possessive pronouns with <strong>in</strong>alienable<br />
possessum nouns<br />
The <strong>in</strong>terpretation of DUPP is unproblematic but FaithPoss does need fur<strong>the</strong>r explanation. We<br />
def<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> notion of determ<strong>in</strong>ed possessor <strong>in</strong> DRT:<br />
(4) A possession relation have(x,y) conta<strong>in</strong>s a determ<strong>in</strong>ed possessor y iff for every f that<br />
embeds <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>put DRS K, it holds that for every f’, f’’ that extend f, f’(y)=f’’(y) and<br />
have(f’(x),f’(y))=have(f’’(x),f’’(y)) (cf. Farkas 2002 on determ<strong>in</strong>ed reference).<br />
Above, we <strong>in</strong>dicated one way of satisfy<strong>in</strong>g FaithPoss, viz. to use possessive pronouns. Here, we<br />
discuss <strong>the</strong> two o<strong>the</strong>r ways we know of. Note that nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>volves explicit mark<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
possession. We <strong>in</strong>troduce <strong>the</strong> first on <strong>the</strong> basis of (5) and make <strong>the</strong> assumptions <strong>in</strong> (6):<br />
(5) Marie a frappé Jean sur la ma<strong>in</strong>.<br />
Marie has hit Jean on <strong>the</strong> hand<br />
(6) a. sur <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation with frapper refers ei<strong>the</strong>r to <strong>the</strong> location or specifies <strong>the</strong> goal of <strong>the</strong><br />
action of hitt<strong>in</strong>g (semantics of <strong>the</strong> preposition)<br />
b. if hitt<strong>in</strong>g an object A and hitt<strong>in</strong>g an object B form one and <strong>the</strong> same event, <strong>the</strong>n it has<br />
to be <strong>the</strong> case that ei<strong>the</strong>r A is part of/equal to B or B is part of/equal to A (semantics of<br />
<strong>the</strong> verb)<br />
c. hands are parts of humans (semantics of <strong>in</strong>alienable possession)<br />
From <strong>the</strong> assumptions <strong>in</strong> (6) it follows that <strong>the</strong> hand <strong>in</strong> (5) has to be John’s. More precisely, on<br />
<strong>the</strong> goal read<strong>in</strong>g of sur <strong>the</strong> hitt<strong>in</strong>g of John is associated with <strong>the</strong> hitt<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> hand, while, by b.
and c., it is ensured that <strong>the</strong>re is a part-of relation between <strong>the</strong> hand and John. Similar analyses<br />
can be presented for several preposition/verb/<strong>in</strong>alienable possessum noun triplets (see Koenig<br />
1999 for a similar yet less flexible analysis).<br />
The second way FaithPoss can be satisfied without an overt possessive pronoun is through <strong>the</strong><br />
use of datives that can and sometimes must undergo so-called possessor rais<strong>in</strong>g (see Szabolsci<br />
1983, Nicol 1997 and Landau 1999). This is illustrated <strong>in</strong> (7):<br />
(7) Le frère k de Jean l lui l a pris la ma<strong>in</strong> t l.<br />
The bro<strong>the</strong>r of John to_him has taken <strong>the</strong> hand<br />
‘John’s bro<strong>the</strong>r took his hand’<br />
The reason<strong>in</strong>g here is similar to <strong>the</strong> one we made on <strong>the</strong> basis of (6): tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> hand to someone<br />
entails that <strong>the</strong> hand <strong>in</strong> question has to belong to this someone.<br />
We are now ready to put our constra<strong>in</strong>ts to work <strong>in</strong> an OT analysis and to discuss its predictions.<br />
Note that <strong>the</strong> facts we discuss are <strong>the</strong> same as <strong>the</strong> ones that have been discussed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> syntactic<br />
literature as basic evidence <strong>in</strong> favour of an analysis <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Given that we have two constra<strong>in</strong>ts, we expect to have two types of languages: one <strong>in</strong> which<br />
FaithPoss is ranked below DUPP and one <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> reverse is <strong>the</strong> case. In<br />
DUPP>>FaithPoss languages we expect <strong>in</strong>alienable possessum nouns – wherever possible – to<br />
occur <strong>in</strong> prepositional phrases or with a dative, satisfy<strong>in</strong>g FaithPoss without violat<strong>in</strong>g DUPP.<br />
Wherever this is impossible, we expect <strong>the</strong>m to occur with <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite article, violat<strong>in</strong>g FaithPoss<br />
but satisfy<strong>in</strong>g DUPP. This derives <strong>the</strong> facts for French <strong>in</strong> (1), (7), (8), (9) and (10).<br />
(8) *Il se lève la ma<strong>in</strong>. (9) *Le frère k de Jean l a pris la ma<strong>in</strong> t l.<br />
He to_hi<strong>ms</strong>elf raises <strong>the</strong> hand The bro<strong>the</strong>r of John to_him has taken <strong>the</strong> hand<br />
(10) Le frère k de Jean l l l’a pris par la ma<strong>in</strong> l.<br />
The bro<strong>the</strong>r of John him has taken by <strong>the</strong> hand<br />
The acceptability of (1) follows from <strong>the</strong> unacceptability of (8) and <strong>the</strong> unavailability of a<br />
prepositional variant, <strong>the</strong> unacceptability of (9) follows from <strong>the</strong> availability of (7) and (10). The<br />
crucial <strong>in</strong>sight we propose here is that <strong>the</strong> acceptability of <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite article <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>alienable<br />
possession construction depends on <strong>the</strong> availability of o<strong>the</strong>r constructions. We don’t deny that<br />
<strong>the</strong>re are <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g generalizations that govern <strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong>se o<strong>the</strong>r constructions but we do<br />
claim that <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tricacies that come with <strong>the</strong>se should not be <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> analysis of<br />
<strong>in</strong>alienable possession as <strong>the</strong>y might ultimately reside <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> lexicon. A clear argument <strong>in</strong> favour<br />
of this strategy comes from <strong>the</strong> fact that similar verbs <strong>in</strong> languages that generally allow for<br />
<strong>in</strong>alienable possession with <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite article need not allow for similar constructions. Compare<br />
<strong>in</strong> this respect <strong>the</strong> marg<strong>in</strong>ality of French la tête me fait mal (‘<strong>the</strong> head to me makes ache’) to <strong>the</strong> full<br />
productivity of Spanish me duele la cabeza (‘to me makes_ache <strong>the</strong> head’).<br />
In FaithPoss>>DUPP languages we expect <strong>in</strong>alienable possessum nouns – wherever possible –<br />
to occur <strong>in</strong> prepositional phrases or with a dative, satisfy<strong>in</strong>g FaithPoss without violat<strong>in</strong>g DUPP.<br />
Wherever this is impossible, we expect <strong>the</strong>m to take a possessive pronoun, violat<strong>in</strong>g DUPP but<br />
satisfy<strong>in</strong>g FaithPoss. This straightforwardly derives <strong>the</strong> facts for English:<br />
(11) Mary k hit John l on <strong>the</strong> hand l. (12) *John k raised <strong>the</strong> hand k.<br />
The acceptability of (11) follows from <strong>the</strong> fact that both FaithPoss and DUPP are satisfied, <strong>the</strong><br />
unacceptability of (12) follows from a violation of FaithPoss.<br />
In this paper, we have proposed an OT analysis that comb<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong>sights about <strong>the</strong> semantics of<br />
verbs, prepositions, datives and <strong>in</strong>alienable possessum nouns with a straigthforward markedness<br />
(DUPP) and faithfulness (FaithPoss) constra<strong>in</strong>t. The result is an elegant analysis with a m<strong>in</strong>imum<br />
of stipulations and a maximum of data coverage. We <strong>in</strong> particular showed how we can avoid<br />
stipulat<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite article functions as an expletive or a pronoun <strong>in</strong> disguise.<br />
References | Barker (<strong>in</strong> press) ‘Possessive weak def<strong>in</strong>ites’ | Farkas (2002), Journal of Semantics 19:<br />
213-243. | Guéron (1985), <strong>in</strong> Guéron et al. (eds.), Grammatical Representation, Dordrecht: Foris. |<br />
Koenig (1999), NLLT 17: 219-265. | Landau (1999), L<strong>in</strong>gua 107: 1-37. | Nicol (1997), PhD<br />
dissertation, Paris X. | Szabolcsi (1983), The L<strong>in</strong>guistic Review 3: 89-102. |Vergnaud & Zubizarreta<br />
(1992), LI 213: 595-652.
Artemis Alexiadou (Stuttgart) & Elena Anagnostopoulou (Crete)<br />
Verb mean<strong>in</strong>g, local context, and <strong>the</strong> syntax of roots <strong>in</strong> alternations<br />
1. While it is uncontroversial that extra-grammatical context (l<strong>in</strong>guistic and non-l<strong>in</strong>guistic)<br />
can <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>the</strong> form and mean<strong>in</strong>g of sentences, research <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> area of verbal alternations<br />
has revealed that <strong>the</strong>re is ano<strong>the</strong>r notion of context important for mean<strong>in</strong>g, which we call here<br />
local context. Mean<strong>in</strong>g of verbs is computed on <strong>the</strong> basis of a ‘core element’ (<strong>the</strong> ‘root’)<br />
which is <strong>in</strong>tegrated <strong>in</strong> a structural template (local context). On this view, verb classes are sets<br />
of verbs shar<strong>in</strong>g a local context while <strong>the</strong> idiosyncratic properties of a given root determ<strong>in</strong>e<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r and how this root can be <strong>in</strong>tegrated <strong>in</strong> a structural template. This basic approach has<br />
been advocated both <strong>in</strong> models of lexical semantic decomposition (e.g. Rappaport Hovav &<br />
Lev<strong>in</strong> RH&L 1998) and <strong>in</strong> models of morphological-syntactic decomposition (e.g. work <strong>in</strong><br />
Distributed Morphology (DM) follow<strong>in</strong>g Marantz 1997, 2001). From <strong>the</strong> DM perspective, a<br />
syntactic representation is <strong>the</strong>n <strong>in</strong>terpreted <strong>in</strong> consultation with <strong>the</strong> encyclopedia. Crucially,<br />
encyclopedia entries <strong>in</strong>terpret structures <strong>in</strong> very specific contexts and <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ations. A<br />
question aris<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> such models is to what extent <strong>the</strong> determ<strong>in</strong>ants of argument realization are<br />
part of <strong>the</strong> root <strong>in</strong>formation and to what extent <strong>the</strong>y are part of <strong>the</strong> event/syntactic template<br />
(see Borer 2005 for a radically exo-skeletal view). In this paper, we explore how <strong>the</strong>se two<br />
mean<strong>in</strong>g components <strong>in</strong>teract on <strong>the</strong> basis of a case study, namely <strong>the</strong> clear-alternation. We<br />
argue that object alternations relate to whe<strong>the</strong>r verbs are classified as manner or result, which<br />
depends on <strong>the</strong> ontological types of <strong>the</strong> morphological roots <strong>the</strong>y are based on and <strong>the</strong> local<br />
contexts permissible for different ontological types of roots.<br />
2. In English, locative verbs of plac<strong>in</strong>g (spray, load) and detach<strong>in</strong>g (clear) alternate between<br />
two frames (1), illustrated <strong>in</strong> (2), see Lev<strong>in</strong> (1993), L& RH (1991):<br />
(1) a. Frame A: DPAgent V DPStuff PPLoc b. Frame B: DPAgent V DPLoc PPStuff<br />
(2) a. Lucy sprayed <strong>the</strong> pa<strong>in</strong>t on <strong>the</strong> wall b. Lucy sprayed <strong>the</strong> wall with pa<strong>in</strong>t<br />
c. Henry cleared dishes from <strong>the</strong> table d. Henry cleared <strong>the</strong> table of dishes<br />
Many locative verbs do not allow <strong>the</strong> alternation, and choose ei<strong>the</strong>r only Frame A (e.g. steal<br />
Change of Location COL) or Frame B (e.g. cover, Change of State COS). The <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of <strong>the</strong> two frames is given <strong>in</strong> (3):<br />
(3) a. COL <strong>in</strong>terpretation (Frame A): [X CAUSE [Y BECOME [AT Z/AWAY FROM Z]]]<br />
b. COS <strong>in</strong>terpretation (Frame B): [X CAUSE [Z BECOME [WITH Y/WITHOUT Y]]]<br />
The question thus is what underlies <strong>the</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ction between alternat<strong>in</strong>g and non-alternat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
verbs and why <strong>the</strong> latter choose <strong>the</strong> COL or <strong>the</strong> COS frame. In <strong>the</strong> recent literature, it has been<br />
proposed that <strong>the</strong> (un-)availability of object alternations can be understood <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of <strong>the</strong><br />
Manner vs. Result hypo<strong>the</strong>sis (RH&L 1998, 2008) accord<strong>in</strong>g to which: i) Verbs lexicalize<br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r manner or result (manner or result, respectively, are entailed by all uses of verbs). ii)<br />
Verbs alternate when <strong>the</strong>y lexicalize manner and <strong>the</strong>y don’t when <strong>the</strong>y lexicalize result.<br />
3. Mavropoulou, Moschou, Tsikala & Anagnostopoulou (MMTA) (2011) show that Greek<br />
has both <strong>the</strong> spray- and <strong>the</strong> clear- alternation:<br />
(4) a. psekasa boja ston tiho b. psekasa ton tiho me boja<br />
sprayed-1sg pa<strong>in</strong>t to <strong>the</strong> wall sprayed-1sg <strong>the</strong> wall with pa<strong>in</strong>t<br />
c. katharisa ta psihula apo to trapezi d. katharisa to trapezi apo psihula<br />
cleaned-1sg <strong>the</strong> crumbles from <strong>the</strong> table cleaned-1sg <strong>the</strong> table from crumbles<br />
These authors provide lists of locative verbs that alternate <strong>in</strong> Greek, and establish <strong>the</strong><br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g: i) <strong>in</strong> Greek <strong>the</strong> alternation is more systematic with verbs of detach<strong>in</strong>g. This<br />
property is partially attributed to <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> preposition used with this class is apo<br />
‘from’, which is clearly directional (unlike se ‘to’) and can easily comb<strong>in</strong>e with manner roots<br />
express<strong>in</strong>g COL (Frame A). ii) More verbs of detach<strong>in</strong>g alternate <strong>in</strong> Greek than <strong>in</strong> English,<br />
where accord<strong>in</strong>g to L&RH (1991) only four verbs alternate (but o<strong>the</strong>rs claim that several<br />
wipe- verbs may alternate as well; see Lev<strong>in</strong> 1993). In <strong>the</strong>se two respects, Greek is similar to<br />
Hebrew, as described by Segal & Landau (S&L 2009). S&L (2009) argue that alternat<strong>in</strong>g
clear verbs are not specified for <strong>the</strong> type of change <strong>in</strong>volved (<strong>the</strong>y entail nei<strong>the</strong>r COL nor<br />
COS), while those that do not alternate are specified ei<strong>the</strong>r entail<strong>in</strong>g COL and appear <strong>in</strong><br />
Frame A or COS (and appear <strong>in</strong> Frame B). MMTA (2011) show that this holds <strong>in</strong> Greek too.<br />
4. The morphological make-up of Greek verbs of detachment strongly suggests that a large<br />
class of alternat<strong>in</strong>g verbs (i.e. verbs not specified for COL/COS) are manner verbs and nonalternat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
ones (ei<strong>the</strong>r only COL or only COS) are result verbs, as expected by <strong>the</strong> Manner<br />
vs. Result Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis. Alternat<strong>in</strong>g verbs typically <strong>in</strong>volve manner/<strong>in</strong>strument roots and a<br />
verbalizer e.g. -on- <strong>in</strong> (5a) (<strong>the</strong>se correspond to <strong>the</strong> English wipe-class). Verbs only allow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
COL conta<strong>in</strong> prepositions/prefixes/particles that overtly encode location (5b); verbs only<br />
allow<strong>in</strong>g COS are based on an adjective, plus a verbalizer, thus overtly encod<strong>in</strong>g state (5c).<br />
(5) a. sider-on-o lit. iron-v-1sg ‘iron’ b. af-er-o lit. from-lift-1sg ‘remove’<br />
c. atho-on-o lit. <strong>in</strong>nocent-v-1sg ‘acquit’<br />
Apply<strong>in</strong>g a series of manner vs. result diagnostics (see Koontz Garboden & Beavers 2011)<br />
confir<strong>ms</strong> that (5a)-type verbs are manner verbs and (5b,c)-type verbs are result verbs. These<br />
can be morphologically decomposed by us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> tools of DM: verbs consist of categoryneutral,<br />
idiosyncratic roots which are merged with categoriz<strong>in</strong>g heads (Marantz 2001) ei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
as <strong>the</strong>ir modifiers, direct Merge, or as <strong>the</strong>ir complements (Embick 2004; Harley 2005).<br />
(6) a. modifiers of v, direct Merge: [v v √ ] b. complements of v [v √ v]<br />
For Embick, direct merge specifies <strong>the</strong> means component of <strong>the</strong> complex predicate, and (6a)<br />
can feed secondary resultative predication. Thus <strong>the</strong> type of merge is sensitive to <strong>the</strong> manner<br />
vs. result/state classification of roots: manner roots merge as modifiers of v, state roots merge<br />
as complements of v. Comb<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g RH&L’s <strong>in</strong>sights with Embick’s structures, we propose that<br />
direct merge applies to manner/<strong>in</strong>strument roots with alternat<strong>in</strong>g verbs of <strong>the</strong> (5a)-type. S<strong>in</strong>ce<br />
<strong>the</strong>se roots merge as modifiers of v, <strong>the</strong>y can be <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> resultative secondary predication,<br />
yield<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> COL and <strong>the</strong> COS frames. Follow<strong>in</strong>g Hale & Keyser (2002), S&L (2009) and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs, we assume that <strong>in</strong> COL, a locative (source) PP is <strong>the</strong> sister of v and <strong>the</strong> stuff DP as <strong>the</strong><br />
specifier of P (7). In COS, a ResultP is <strong>the</strong> sister of v and <strong>the</strong> DPlocation is <strong>the</strong> specifier of v (8):<br />
(7) [v v � [PP DPstuff [P DPlocation ]]] (8) [vP DPlocation [v [ResultP]]]<br />
Turn<strong>in</strong>g to non-alternat<strong>in</strong>g verbs, Greek verbs show<strong>in</strong>g only frame A conta<strong>in</strong> prefixes, drawn<br />
from <strong>the</strong> prepositional <strong>in</strong>ventory. Most of <strong>the</strong>m belong to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ventory of Classical Greek and<br />
are no longer productive. They cannot be separated from <strong>the</strong> verbal stem, predom<strong>in</strong>antly have<br />
spatial mean<strong>in</strong>gs, and <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation with <strong>the</strong> morphological root give <strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g of what<br />
L&RH label “root” <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> lexical semantic sense, e.g. ek- top- iz-o ‘from -place-verbalizer-<br />
1sg.’. We propose that <strong>the</strong> prefixes ‘lexicalize’ path and select a PlaceP complement<br />
(Svenonius 2008), lexicalized by �top <strong>in</strong> (9). The apo phrase is <strong>in</strong> Spec,Path, and <strong>the</strong>re is a<br />
Spec-head Agreement relationship, <strong>in</strong> this case Source. Support for this analysis comes from<br />
<strong>the</strong> fact that when Path = Goal, <strong>the</strong> verbal prefix is ‘eis’ (to) and <strong>the</strong> Goal-PP is a se-‘to’ PP.<br />
(9) [vP iz [PathP ek [PlaceP �top ]]]<br />
Greek non-alternat<strong>in</strong>g verbs show<strong>in</strong>g only COS are built on <strong>the</strong> basis of an adjectival base.<br />
The set of adjectives related to <strong>the</strong>se verbs can each take a complement expressed by means<br />
of an apo phrase <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> stuff argument (adio apo nero ‘empty from water’), which is<br />
<strong>the</strong>n <strong>in</strong>herited by <strong>the</strong> verb derived from <strong>the</strong>se adjectives. Thus <strong>the</strong> verbs appear only <strong>in</strong> COS.<br />
5. We provided evidence that verbal alternations depend on both <strong>the</strong> ontological types of <strong>the</strong><br />
verbal roots <strong>in</strong>volved and on <strong>the</strong> local contexts permissible for <strong>the</strong>se different types. This <strong>in</strong><br />
turn suggests that a) roots do have some mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> isolation (contra e.g. Acquaviva 2009,<br />
Borer 2008, de Belder & van Craenenbroeck 2011) which consists of a limited number of<br />
contrastive properties (manner, state and place <strong>in</strong> our case), b) <strong>the</strong>se dist<strong>in</strong>ctions <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>the</strong><br />
syntactic merger possibilities of roots, c) <strong>the</strong> syntactic template roots are <strong>in</strong>serted <strong>in</strong> fully<br />
specifies <strong>the</strong> realization of verbal arguments, and d) mean<strong>in</strong>g is assigned by <strong>the</strong> encyclopedia<br />
that calculates both <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>put of <strong>the</strong> root and that of <strong>the</strong> syntactic template.
Artemis Alexiadou & Florian Schäfer (Stuttgart)<br />
Naturally reflexive verbs revisited: relations between syntax, semantics, and <strong>the</strong> lexicon<br />
1. In <strong>the</strong> literature, naturally reflexive verbs ((NRVs) e.g. wash, Kemmer 1993) have been <strong>the</strong><br />
topic of much controversial discussion. Here we focus on one particular aspect of this debate,<br />
namely <strong>the</strong> question whe<strong>the</strong>r or not NRVs <strong>in</strong>clude an empty category at some level of<br />
representation, ei<strong>the</strong>r a null reflexive or a trace/copy, <strong>in</strong> languages like English and Greek. In<br />
<strong>the</strong>se languages, NRVs are, at <strong>the</strong> surface, <strong>in</strong>transitive ei<strong>the</strong>r because no overt reflexive form<br />
is present (English: John washed) or because, <strong>in</strong> addition, de-transitiviz<strong>in</strong>g morphology is<br />
present (Greek: O Janis plithike 'John washed-non-active-3sg'). As <strong>the</strong> class of verbs that are<br />
treated as naturally reflexive see<strong>ms</strong> quite stable across languages, a uniform analysis has been<br />
argued to be desirable (see e.g. Alexiadou & Doron 2011). In this paper, we argue for a nonuniform<br />
analysis of NRVs across languages (cf. Re<strong>in</strong>hart & Siloni 's 2004 lexicon vs. syntax<br />
parameter; see Decha<strong>in</strong>e & Wiltschko 2011 for discussion of heterogeneous approaches to<br />
reflexives). We first show that under closer <strong>in</strong>spection, English NRVs are syntactically<br />
<strong>in</strong>transitive, provid<strong>in</strong>g thus fur<strong>the</strong>r support for <strong>the</strong> view that <strong>the</strong>se predicates lack a<br />
syntactically projected object (Re<strong>in</strong>hart & Siloni 2004). While an <strong>in</strong>transitive analysis is<br />
available for English, it cannot extend to German, Dutch and Greek. In <strong>the</strong> former case<br />
(German, Dutch), this is so because a syntactically projected object is overtly present, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
latter case (Greek) because NRVs, unlike ord<strong>in</strong>ary unergatives, show de-transitivization<br />
morphology. We thus propose a tri-partition of <strong>the</strong> way languages resolve <strong>the</strong> requirement<br />
that <strong>the</strong> two <strong>the</strong>matic roles associated with NRVs make reference to <strong>the</strong> same entity: a) <strong>in</strong><br />
English, this is done at <strong>the</strong> conceptual <strong>in</strong>terface, b) <strong>in</strong> German and Dutch, this is done via<br />
b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of an object anaphor, and c) <strong>in</strong> Greek, this is done via movement <strong>in</strong>to a <strong>the</strong>ta-position<br />
(syntactic bundl<strong>in</strong>g). This reflects <strong>the</strong> type of morphology we f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> three language<br />
groups, zero/none, reflexive pronoun, and an affix, respectively. Our analysis correctly<br />
predicts <strong>the</strong> productivity of reflexivization noted for Greek, but not for e.g. English, which is<br />
not captured under <strong>the</strong> homogeneous approach.<br />
2. Some authors argued that NRVs are actually transitive, i.e. <strong>the</strong>y select a specific reflexive<br />
null morpheme, which is overt <strong>in</strong> languages like German (Hans wäscht sich ‘Hans washes<br />
hi<strong>ms</strong>elf’), see Safir (2004) and references <strong>the</strong>re<strong>in</strong>, Marantz (2009). Support for this comes<br />
from <strong>the</strong> observation that <strong>the</strong>se predicates do have transitive construals, e.g. John washed<br />
Mary/John didn't wash Mary but hi<strong>ms</strong>elf. O<strong>the</strong>rs proposed that NRVs are actually<br />
unaccusatives, <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>me argument is a derived subject and leaves a trace/copy <strong>in</strong> its <strong>the</strong>matic<br />
position (Marantz 1984, and subsequent work, McG<strong>in</strong>nis 1998, Embick 2004). Support for<br />
this analysis comes from languages such as Greek that mark <strong>the</strong>ir NRVs with <strong>the</strong> same nonactive<br />
morphology as <strong>the</strong>ir passives or uncontroversial unaccusatives. Both <strong>the</strong>se analyses are<br />
problematic for English. Sells, Zaenen & Zec (1987) showed that NRVs behave unlike<br />
predicates that take an overt reflexive with respect to ‘strict’ and ‘sloppy’ read<strong>in</strong>gs. (1), with<br />
an overt reflexive, is ambiguous between a strict and sloppy read<strong>in</strong>g. (2), an NRV, has only<br />
<strong>the</strong> sloppy read<strong>in</strong>g, suggest<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> predicate is semantically <strong>in</strong>transitive:<br />
(1) John defends hi<strong>ms</strong>elf better than Peter<br />
a. John defends hi<strong>ms</strong>elf better than Peter defends hi<strong>ms</strong>elf sloppy<br />
b. Johni defends hi<strong>ms</strong>elf better that Peter defends himi strict<br />
(2) John washes more than George.<br />
a. John washes hi<strong>ms</strong>elf more than George washes hi<strong>ms</strong>elf. sloppy<br />
b. John i washes hi<strong>ms</strong>elf more <strong>the</strong>n George washes him i *strict<br />
(1) has a fur<strong>the</strong>r read<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> so-called object comparison read<strong>in</strong>g (Johni defends hi<strong>ms</strong>elf<br />
better that he i defends Peter), which (2) lacks, as expected, see Dimitriadis & Que (2009).<br />
Re<strong>in</strong>hart & Siloni (2004) po<strong>in</strong>ted out that NRVs <strong>in</strong> English behave unlike one-place<br />
unaccusatives. As is well-known, agentive -er nom<strong>in</strong>als can only be derived from predicates<br />
with an external argument (Lev<strong>in</strong> & Rappaport Hovav 1992). Re<strong>in</strong>hart & Siloni show that
NRVs form agentive nom<strong>in</strong>als (3c), similar to unergatives (3a):<br />
(3) a. She runs so fast because she is an experienced runner.<br />
b. * She moves so gracefully because she is an experienced mover.<br />
c. She dresses slowly because she is an elegant dresser.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>r support for an unergative analysis comes from <strong>the</strong> application of o<strong>the</strong>r transitivity<br />
tests (Bresnan 1982, Kratzer 2004, Lev<strong>in</strong> 1999, Rappaport Hovav and Lev<strong>in</strong> 1998, 2008).<br />
Reduplication to get an iterative read<strong>in</strong>g, out-prefixation and ‘fake’ reflexives are possible<br />
only with non-core transitive (and unergative) verbs (4), but not with core-transitives (5). (6),<br />
an NRV, behaves like (4), <strong>in</strong> both its read<strong>in</strong>gs, <strong>the</strong> reflexive and <strong>the</strong> disjo<strong>in</strong>t one:<br />
(4) a. John run and run and run/John ate and ate. (5) a.*John broke and broke and broke<br />
b. John out-run/out-ate Mary. b. *John out-broke Mary.<br />
c. John run/ate hi<strong>ms</strong>elf dead. c. *John broke-hi<strong>ms</strong>elf dead.<br />
(6) a. John washed and washed and washed.<br />
b. John out-washed his sister.<br />
c. John washed hi<strong>ms</strong>elf raw.<br />
3. To expla<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> behavior of English NRVs, it has been proposed that <strong>the</strong>se have two lexical<br />
entries, a reflexive and a disjo<strong>in</strong>t one (see e.g. Moulton 2005). Assum<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> external<br />
argument is severed from <strong>the</strong> VP (Kratzer 1996), and is <strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>in</strong> Voice, it is not clear<br />
how to formally encode that such a lexical entry br<strong>in</strong>gs about a reflexive <strong>in</strong>terpretation.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, such a move see<strong>ms</strong> undesirable, as it would lead to an explosion of <strong>the</strong> lexicon.<br />
We showed that NRVs are similar to o<strong>the</strong>r non-core transitive predicates like eat. An option<br />
that is available for <strong>the</strong>se predicates, under <strong>the</strong> assumption that <strong>the</strong>matic roles belong to <strong>the</strong><br />
conceptual level (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 1995), is to <strong>in</strong>terpret <strong>the</strong>m as two-place predicates at <strong>the</strong> syntaxconceptual<br />
level <strong>in</strong>terface. This means that <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal argument is added post-syntactically.<br />
With verbs of consumption, <strong>the</strong> added argument is <strong>the</strong> most prototypical object for this<br />
predicate-class, an amount of food/fluid that one can consume. NRVs are def<strong>in</strong>ed as carry<strong>in</strong>g<br />
“<strong>in</strong>herent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir mean<strong>in</strong>g [...] <strong>the</strong> lack of expectation that <strong>the</strong> two semantic roles <strong>the</strong>y make<br />
reference to will refer to dist<strong>in</strong>ct entities” (Kemmer 1993:58). The most prototypical object is<br />
thus identical to <strong>the</strong> subject, and this is computed at <strong>the</strong> conceptual <strong>in</strong>terface.<br />
4. Dutch and German have an overt object for <strong>the</strong> reflexive <strong>in</strong>terpretation, and allow only <strong>the</strong><br />
disjo<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong>terpretation to be resolved at <strong>the</strong> conceptual <strong>in</strong>terface. In <strong>the</strong>se languages, NRVs are<br />
syntactically transitive (e.g. Ste<strong>in</strong>bach 2002). As an <strong>in</strong>ternal argument is projected <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
syntax to be bound by <strong>the</strong> external one, <strong>the</strong>se predicates lack disjo<strong>in</strong>t read<strong>in</strong>gs. We relate this<br />
to <strong>the</strong> special (light) reflexives for<strong>ms</strong> used, an option unavailable <strong>in</strong> English.<br />
5. Nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> unergative nor <strong>the</strong> transitive analysis is applicable to Greek due to <strong>the</strong> presence<br />
of non-active morphology with NRVs. Embick (2004) proposed that NRVs comb<strong>in</strong>e with a<br />
Voice that is agentive, but lacks a specifier, and this is realized via non-active morphology at<br />
morphological structure. This cannot expla<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> absence of disjo<strong>in</strong>t reference with reflexives,<br />
but not with passives. Doron (2003) argued that NRVs comb<strong>in</strong>e with a special k<strong>in</strong>d of Voice<br />
(<strong>the</strong> host of non-active morphology), which does not trigger <strong>the</strong> disjo<strong>in</strong>t reference effect. But<br />
this raises <strong>the</strong> question what regulates <strong>the</strong> cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistic distribution of this special Voice.<br />
We propose <strong>in</strong>stead that <strong>in</strong> Greek, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal argument moves to Spec,Voice, comb<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
two <strong>the</strong>matic roles (<strong>the</strong>me & agent). This expla<strong>in</strong>s Papangeli’s (2004) observation that <strong>the</strong>re<br />
are many newly formed reflexives <strong>in</strong> Greek (e.g. hapakonete = to give pills to hi<strong>ms</strong>elf,<br />
derived from <strong>the</strong> transitive verb via <strong>the</strong> addition of non-active morphology) that would be<br />
hard to expla<strong>in</strong>, if we assumed that only a closed set of verbs has a reflexive variant. We view<br />
non-active morphology as similar to be-selection <strong>in</strong> Romance (cf. Haider & R<strong>in</strong>dler-Schjerve<br />
1987): it is <strong>the</strong> morphological reflex of an agreement cha<strong>in</strong> between T and an element with<strong>in</strong><br />
VP, as <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of passives and unaccusatives. With reflexives, T agrees with <strong>the</strong> whole<br />
cha<strong>in</strong> between <strong>the</strong> object and <strong>the</strong> subject position, lead<strong>in</strong>g aga<strong>in</strong> to non-active morphology.
Anke Assmann, Doreen Georgi, Fabian Heck, Gereon Müller & Philipp Weisser (Leipzig)<br />
Ergatives move too early<br />
Claim: We claim that <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ability of ergative arguments (DPerg) to undergo Ā-movement<br />
(wh-movement, focuss<strong>in</strong>g, relativization) <strong>in</strong> many morphologically ergative languages should<br />
not be brought about by restrictions on <strong>the</strong> movement of ergative DPs. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, we argue that<br />
movement of <strong>the</strong> ergative argument is not prohibited per se but if it applies, it applies too early,<br />
<strong>the</strong>reby underm<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g case assignment to <strong>the</strong> absolutive argument (DPabs). As a consequence,<br />
<strong>the</strong> derivation crashes.<br />
Background & Data: It has been noted <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> literature that <strong>in</strong> many ergative languages DPerg<br />
cannot be Ā-moved, <strong>in</strong> contrast to DPabs, cf. (1).<br />
(1) Katuk<strong>in</strong>a-Kanamari—Wh-Movement (Queixalos 2010)<br />
a. hanian tu Nodia nah=hoho-n<strong>in</strong>?<br />
b. *hanian tan dyuman tahi yu?<br />
whom Q Nodia ERG=call-DURATIVE who here spread water Q<br />
‘Whom is Nodia call<strong>in</strong>g?’<br />
‘Who spread water here?’<br />
There are at least two possible analyses: (i) The trace of DPerg is not licensed (e.g. <strong>in</strong> GB<br />
ter<strong>ms</strong>, it is not strictly governed); (ii) (covert) movement of DPabs blocks movement of DPerg,<br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r due to m<strong>in</strong>imality (Campana 1992), or DPabs blocks <strong>the</strong> only escape hatch with<strong>in</strong> vP<br />
(Aldridge 2004, Coon 2010). Both approaches suffer from technical and empirical proble<strong>ms</strong>.<br />
As for (i), constra<strong>in</strong>ts on traces cannot be formulated <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> M<strong>in</strong>imalist framework. As for (ii),<br />
Campana’s analysis is based on a non-standard concept of <strong>in</strong>tervention while Aldridge (2004)<br />
and Coon (2010) must stipulate a ban on multiple specifiers. All three accounts must resort to<br />
covert movement of DPabs, which is hardly motivated on <strong>in</strong>dependent grounds. Empirically, <strong>the</strong><br />
analyses <strong>in</strong> (ii) make <strong>the</strong> wrong prediction that DPabs not only blocks movement of DPerg but<br />
also movement of o<strong>the</strong>r vP-<strong>in</strong>ternal elements like adjuncts or obliques (2). They also predict that<br />
similar movement asymmetries between coarguments should be found <strong>in</strong> nom<strong>in</strong>ative-accusative<br />
languages, contrary to fact.<br />
(2) Mam —Wh-Movement of Passive Agent (England 1983)<br />
al uPn xhi kub’ tzy-eet qa-cheej?<br />
Q RN DEP-3PL.ABS DIR GRAB-pass PL-horse<br />
‘By whom were <strong>the</strong> horses grabbed?’<br />
Assumptions: [A1] Follow<strong>in</strong>g Müller (2009), we assume that (i) case is assigned under Agree,<br />
(ii) <strong>in</strong> all languages, T assigns unmarked case (NOM/ABS) and v marked case (ERG/ACC),<br />
(iii) <strong>the</strong> only difference between accusative and ergative case syste<strong>ms</strong> is <strong>the</strong> order <strong>in</strong> which<br />
<strong>the</strong> basic operations Merge and Agree apply with<strong>in</strong> vP. S<strong>in</strong>ce v triggers two operations (it assigns<br />
case and selects an external argument), languages must give preference ei<strong>the</strong>r to Agree or<br />
Merge, given Earl<strong>in</strong>ess (Pesetsky 1989) and <strong>the</strong> tenet that operations cannot apply simultaneously.<br />
[A2] Instead of m<strong>in</strong>imality, we assume a Specifier-Head-Bias (SHB) which states that<br />
agreement between a head and its specifier is preferred to agreement between a head and an element<br />
its c-command doma<strong>in</strong> (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 1986, 1995, Koopman 2006; see Béjar & ˇRezáč 2009<br />
for a similar idea with a bias <strong>in</strong>versed). The SHB is compatible with equi-distance effects, which<br />
pose a problem for path-based def<strong>in</strong>itions of m<strong>in</strong>imality. [A3] Movement to SpecCP must make<br />
an <strong>in</strong>termediate stop <strong>in</strong> SpecTP. This is ensured by assum<strong>in</strong>g that ei<strong>the</strong>r TP is a phase (Richards<br />
2011), any XP is a phase (Müller 2010) or strict locality (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2005). [A4] Edge features<br />
on phase heads are freely available (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2000). [A5] Arguments may receive more than<br />
one case (cf. approaches to case stack<strong>in</strong>g: Andrews 1996, Nordl<strong>in</strong>ger 1998, Richards 2007).<br />
[A6] Agree is not sensitive to <strong>the</strong> PIC (see e.g. Boˇskovič 2007).<br />
Analysis: In ergative languages, preference is given to Merge over Agree with <strong>the</strong> result that v<br />
first selects <strong>the</strong> external argument (DPext) before it assigns case. Due to <strong>the</strong> SHB, <strong>the</strong> marked<br />
case of v ends up on its specifier while <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal argument (DP<strong>in</strong>t) receives case from T,
given [A6]. In accusative languages, preference is given to Agree over Merge, such that v has<br />
to assign case to DP<strong>in</strong>t before Merge of DPext, which <strong>in</strong> turn receives case from T (cf. Müller<br />
2009). Now, on <strong>the</strong> T head, <strong>the</strong> same <strong>in</strong>determ<strong>in</strong>acy as on v arises: it assigns case and must<br />
have an edge feature if one argument is to undergo Ā-movement. Assum<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> languagespecific<br />
order of operations rema<strong>in</strong>s constant throughout <strong>the</strong> derivation, we can derive <strong>the</strong> ban on<br />
ergative movement and <strong>the</strong> asymmetry between ergative and accusative languages, consider<strong>in</strong>g<br />
two different derivations: [D1] DPext has an additional [wh]-feature and moves to an operator<br />
position <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> left periphery via SpecTP ([A3]; [A4]) to check this feature; [D2] DP<strong>in</strong>t has a<br />
[wh]-feature and moves to an operator position. As for [D1], <strong>in</strong> accusative languages DP<strong>in</strong>t has<br />
received accusative with<strong>in</strong> vP. DPext receives case via Agree as soon as T is merged because<br />
Agree is preferred over Merge. Afterwards, DPext is free to move and check <strong>the</strong> edge feature on<br />
T. In ergative languages, DPext receives case with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> vP; DP<strong>in</strong>t rema<strong>in</strong>s unvalued. As soon as<br />
T is merged, it first attracts DPext to satisfy its edge feature (preference for Merge over Agree).<br />
Due to <strong>the</strong> SHB ([A2]), DPext checks case on T ([A5]) with <strong>the</strong> result that DP<strong>in</strong>t does not<br />
receive any case. The derivation crashes because DPext has absorbed <strong>the</strong> case features provided<br />
for DP<strong>in</strong>t. As for [D2], <strong>in</strong> accusative languages, DP<strong>in</strong>t receives its case from v while DPext is<br />
still unvalued. When T enters <strong>the</strong> structure, it first assigns case to DPext before it attracts DP<strong>in</strong>t<br />
to its specifier (preference for Agree). Thus, <strong>the</strong> context for multiple case-check<strong>in</strong>g does not<br />
arise <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first place. In ergative languages, DP<strong>in</strong>t is attracted to SpecTP where it receives its<br />
case due to <strong>the</strong> SHB while DPext receives case from v. The derivation converges. In summary,<br />
out of <strong>the</strong> four derivations <strong>in</strong> which one argument is extracted, three derivations converge. Only<br />
<strong>the</strong> derivation <strong>in</strong> which DPext <strong>in</strong> an ergative language is extracted is ungrammatical because<br />
DPerg moves before T has assigns case to DPabs. Hence, ergatives move too early.<br />
Conclusion: The present analysis has several advantages: (i) It captures <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tuition by Pol<strong>in</strong>sky<br />
et al (2011) that movement of DPerg is not problematic per se but leads to a problem for <strong>the</strong><br />
identification of DPabs. (ii) It is not forced to assume unmotivated covert movement steps of <strong>the</strong><br />
absolutive. (iii) It avoids stipulations about <strong>the</strong> different nature of ergative and accusative syntax.<br />
One parameter, namely <strong>the</strong> order<strong>in</strong>g of Merge and Agree, derives <strong>the</strong> difference <strong>in</strong> argument<br />
encod<strong>in</strong>g as well as <strong>the</strong> difference that <strong>the</strong>re is a movement asymmetry between coarguments <strong>in</strong><br />
ergative but not <strong>in</strong> accusative languages. (iv) It is empirically superior to o<strong>the</strong>r exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ories<br />
because it makes <strong>the</strong> correct prediction that <strong>in</strong> languages which exhibit a ban on movement of<br />
<strong>the</strong> ergative o<strong>the</strong>r elements like adjuncts, passive agents and obliques are still free to move (cf.<br />
(2)). It should also be clear that our analysis implies a strictly derivational syntax <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong><br />
order of operations plays an important role <strong>in</strong> deriv<strong>in</strong>g properties of <strong>the</strong> grammar.<br />
Outlook: F<strong>in</strong>ally, we address <strong>the</strong> related question of why not all ergative languages <strong>in</strong>stantiate<br />
a ban on ergative movement and discuss several possible answers: (i) The order of operations<br />
on T differs from <strong>the</strong> order on v. (ii) T is not a phase head. (iii) DPs cannot check multiple<br />
case features. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, we exam<strong>in</strong>e repair strategies for <strong>the</strong> ban on ergative movement<br />
such as antipassive or agent focus (Stiebels 2006, Aissen 1999). We argue that <strong>the</strong> agent focus<br />
morpheme is <strong>the</strong> morphological realization of an added probe which assigns case to DP<strong>in</strong>t,<br />
<strong>the</strong>reby prevent<strong>in</strong>g a crash of <strong>the</strong> derivation (cf. Béjar & ˇRezáč 2009, Coon 2010).<br />
Selected References: Aldrige, E. (2008): <strong>Generative</strong> Approaches to Ergativity, Language and <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> Compass<br />
2(5), 966-995. • Béjar, S. & M. ˇRezáč (2009): Cyclic Agree, L<strong>in</strong>guistic Inquiry 40(1), 35-73. • Boˇskovič,<br />
ˇZ. (2007): Agree, Phases, and Intervention Effects. In L<strong>in</strong>guistic Analysis 33: 54-96. • Campana, M. (1992):<br />
A Movement Theory of Ergativity, PhD <strong>the</strong>sis, McGill University, Montréal. • Coon, J. (2010): A-Bar Extraction<br />
Asymmetries. Manuscript. McGill University. • Müller. G. (2009): Ergativity, Accusativity, and <strong>the</strong> Order of<br />
Merge and Agree. In K. Grohmann (ed.), Explorations of Phase Theory. Features and Arguments, 269-308. Berl<strong>in</strong>:<br />
Mouton de Gruyter. • Pesetsky, D. (1989): The Earl<strong>in</strong>ess Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple. Ms. • Pol<strong>in</strong>sky, M., C. Gómez Gallo, P. Graff<br />
& E. Kravtchenko (to appear): ‘Subject Preference and Ergativity’, L<strong>in</strong>gua. • Richards, M. (2011): Deriv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
edge: What’s <strong>in</strong> a phase? Syntax. 14.1, 74-95.
Anke Assmann & Fabian Heck (Leipzig)<br />
Opaque Intervention <strong>in</strong> German Scrambl<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Claim: Based on hi<strong>the</strong>rto unnoticed facts from German, we claim that an argument’s capacity to b<strong>in</strong>d a<br />
parasitic gap (PG) or to associate with a float<strong>in</strong>g quantifier (FQ) is not dependent on <strong>the</strong> argument’s surface<br />
position. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> distribution of PGs and FQs is often opaque: (i) There are cases where b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
a PG by an argument is impossible although no co-argument <strong>in</strong>tervenes on <strong>the</strong> surface (counter-feed<strong>in</strong>g);<br />
(ii) and <strong>the</strong>re are cases where a wh-phrase can associate with a FQ although a surface <strong>in</strong>tervener is present<br />
(counter-bleed<strong>in</strong>g). We suggest that opacity arises because <strong>the</strong>re is an earlier derivational stage where (i ′ )<br />
a co-argument b<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>the</strong> PG and <strong>the</strong>n scrambles to a position where it ceases to <strong>in</strong>tervene on <strong>the</strong> surface;<br />
and where (ii ′ ) <strong>the</strong> wh-phrase occupies a position such that it is <strong>the</strong> closest element to associate with <strong>the</strong><br />
FQ, and later it moves on to a higher position, giv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> surface impression to <strong>in</strong>volve <strong>in</strong>tervention.<br />
Observations: (i) An <strong>in</strong>direct object cannot b<strong>in</strong>d a PG by scrambl<strong>in</strong>g if a direct object co-argument has<br />
scrambled, too, not even if <strong>the</strong> co-argument does not <strong>in</strong>tervene on <strong>the</strong> surface between <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>direct object<br />
and <strong>the</strong> PG (1-a). A direct object can b<strong>in</strong>d a PG even if <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>direct object co-argument <strong>in</strong>tervenes (1-b).<br />
(1) a. *wenn jemand das Buch der Anette2 [ ohne PG2 zu vertrauen ] ausleiht<br />
if someone <strong>the</strong>acc book <strong>the</strong>dat Anette without to trust<br />
“if someone lends Anette <strong>the</strong> book without trust<strong>in</strong>g her”<br />
lends<br />
b. wenn jemand das Buch2 der Anette [ ohne PG2 durchzulesen ] zurückgibt<br />
if someone <strong>the</strong>acc book <strong>the</strong>dat Anette without through-to-read<br />
“if some returns <strong>the</strong> book to Anette without hav<strong>in</strong>g read it”<br />
returns<br />
(ii) A wh-subject cannot associate with <strong>the</strong> FQ alles if an <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite object <strong>in</strong>tervenes on <strong>the</strong> surface (2-a).<br />
The same holds for an <strong>in</strong>direct wh-object and an <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite direct object (2-b). However, if <strong>the</strong> grammatical<br />
functions of wh-phrase and <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite are reversed, surface <strong>in</strong>tervention is unproblematic (3-a,b).<br />
(2) a. *Wer1 hat e<strong>in</strong>en Koch alles1 bezahlt?<br />
whonom has aacc cook all<br />
“Who all paid a cook?”<br />
paid<br />
b. *Wem1 hat er e<strong>in</strong>en Koch alles1 gezeigt?<br />
whodat has er aacc cook all shown<br />
“To whom all did he show a cook?”<br />
(3) a. Wen1 hat e<strong>in</strong> Koch alles1 beleidigt?<br />
whoacc has a cooknom all<br />
“Who all did a cook <strong>in</strong>sult?”<br />
<strong>in</strong>sulted<br />
b. Was1 hat er e<strong>in</strong>em Koch alles1 geborgt?<br />
whatacc has he adat cook all lent<br />
“What all did he lend to a cook?”<br />
Assumptions: Our analysis is embedded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky (2001) (thus presuppos<strong>in</strong>g phases,<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir impenetrability, and Agree). We follow Richards (2004) <strong>in</strong> assum<strong>in</strong>g that scrambl<strong>in</strong>g is triggered by<br />
edge features (EFs, Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2007). In a scrambl<strong>in</strong>g language like German, such EFs can be <strong>in</strong>serted (at<br />
least) on v and T. Follow<strong>in</strong>g Müller (2010), we assume that EF-<strong>in</strong>sertion on a head H is only possible as<br />
long as H is active, i.e., H still bears some o<strong>the</strong>r feature that is to trigger some syntactic operation. As<br />
Müller (2011) shows, this leads to <strong>the</strong> Intermediate Step Corollary (ISC), which states that <strong>in</strong>ternal Merge<br />
to SpecX triggered by an EF precedes external Merge (triggered by a selectional feature). Toge<strong>the</strong>r with<br />
<strong>the</strong> Extension Condition (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 1995), this implies that <strong>in</strong>ternal Merge triggered by an EF always<br />
targets an <strong>in</strong>ner SpecX while <strong>the</strong> outermost SpecX is created by external Merge (provided external Merge<br />
applies at all). If EFs are undeletable (see Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2007), it is plausible to assume that <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>in</strong>serted<br />
on a head H only once per derivation. Once an EF has been <strong>in</strong>serted on H, it attracts all <strong>the</strong> categories<br />
C1, C2, . . ., Cn that are supposed to reach H’s specifier doma<strong>in</strong>. Suppose now that <strong>the</strong> EF first attracts<br />
C1, C2, . . ., Cn <strong>in</strong> a top down fashion, start<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>the</strong> closest Ci (closeness be<strong>in</strong>g def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of<br />
asymmetric c-command). Every time a Ci is attracted, it is placed on a stack. Only after all of C1, C2, . . .,<br />
Cn have been placed on <strong>the</strong> stack, <strong>the</strong>y are subsequently merged <strong>in</strong> H’s specifier doma<strong>in</strong>. Note that Merge<br />
exclusively has access to <strong>the</strong> Ci on top of <strong>the</strong> stack. Once Ci is removed, Ci−1 occupies <strong>the</strong> top and thus<br />
becomes accessible. As a consequence, C1, C2, . . ., Cn are moved <strong>in</strong> parallel: due to <strong>the</strong> first <strong>in</strong> – last out<br />
procedure, <strong>the</strong>y are merged <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>verse order <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong>y have been attracted, see also Stroik (2009).<br />
Our assumptions about PGs and FQs are as follows. Adjunct clauses conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g PGs are merged <strong>in</strong> Specv<br />
(above or below <strong>the</strong> subject). PGs must establish Agree with <strong>the</strong>ir b<strong>in</strong>der (see Assmann 2010). Once<br />
an argument has established Agree with a PG, it does not <strong>in</strong>duce any M<strong>in</strong>imal L<strong>in</strong>k Condition effects
(MLC, Fanselow 1991, Cho<strong>ms</strong>k 1995) with respect to o<strong>the</strong>r Agree-relations <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g PGs. FQ alles<br />
must associate with an <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite (see Reis 1992). Association <strong>in</strong>volves Agree. Alles is merged <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> TP.<br />
Analysis: In (1-a), <strong>the</strong> direct object is merged as sister of V, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>direct argument as its specifier. The<br />
adjunct clause (conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> PG) is merged <strong>in</strong> Specv. As long as <strong>the</strong> subject is not merged, v rema<strong>in</strong>s<br />
active and an EF can be <strong>in</strong>serted on it. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> assumptions <strong>in</strong> Müller (2010), an EF <strong>in</strong>serted<br />
on H must serve its purpose before o<strong>the</strong>r features of H can be accessed. Therefore both objects are first<br />
attracted by <strong>the</strong> EF to Specv. Movement proceeds <strong>in</strong> parallel (via <strong>the</strong> stack), result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> objects’<br />
relative order der Anette ≻ das Buch. Both c-command <strong>the</strong> PG. But s<strong>in</strong>ce das Buch is closer to <strong>the</strong> PG,<br />
der Anette cannot b<strong>in</strong>d it without violat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> MLC (see also Fanselow 1993). Next, <strong>the</strong> subject is merged<br />
<strong>in</strong> Specv. When T is merged, it is active (due to its Φ-probes) and <strong>the</strong>refore accessible to EF-<strong>in</strong>sertion.<br />
EF on T attracts (aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> parallel) subject and direct object to SpecT, result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> (1-a). Although, on <strong>the</strong><br />
surface, der Anette is closest to <strong>the</strong> PG, b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g is impossible as <strong>the</strong> PG has already established Agree<br />
with das Buch. By <strong>the</strong> same reason<strong>in</strong>g (1-b) is grammatical. In (2-a), <strong>the</strong> direct object is merged as sister<br />
of V. In order to rema<strong>in</strong> PIC-accessible (to ultimately reach SpecT) it is attracted by an EF to Specv. Due<br />
to <strong>the</strong> ISC, this happens before <strong>the</strong> subject is merged, yield<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> order wer ≻ e<strong>in</strong>en Koch with<strong>in</strong> vP.<br />
Next, alles enters <strong>the</strong> TP. S<strong>in</strong>ce T is active (Φ-probes), an EF can be <strong>in</strong>serted. Subject and object are<br />
attracted <strong>in</strong> parallel, conserv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir relative order. As a result, e<strong>in</strong>en Koch ends up closer to alles than<br />
wer. The MLC prevents wer from establish<strong>in</strong>g Agree with alles. Instead, alles enters Agree with <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite, which does not qualify for an associate, presumably due to semantic reasons. This accounts for<br />
<strong>the</strong> ungrammaticality of (2-a). Similar considerations apply to (2-b). In (3-a) <strong>the</strong> direct object is attracted<br />
to Specv (before <strong>the</strong> subject is merged), yield<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> order e<strong>in</strong> Koch ≻ wen with<strong>in</strong> vP. After alles is merged<br />
<strong>in</strong> TP and an EF is <strong>in</strong>serted on T, <strong>the</strong> arguments are moved (<strong>in</strong> parallel) to SpecT. As <strong>the</strong>ir relative order<br />
is not altered, wen is closer to alles and establishes Agree with it, <strong>the</strong>reby creat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> association. In<br />
a later step, <strong>the</strong> wh-phrase moves away, giv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> superficial impression of be<strong>in</strong>g separated from alles<br />
by a potential <strong>in</strong>tervener. Aga<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong> derivation of (3-b) is analog. The analysis also accounts for facts<br />
about German PGs that have been noted elsewhere. Thus, it has been observed that no <strong>in</strong>tervention <strong>in</strong><br />
PG-b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g arises (a) if <strong>the</strong> potential <strong>in</strong>tervener is <strong>the</strong> subject (Fanselow 1993), (b) if it is a pronoun (den<br />
Dikken & Mulder 1991, Fanselow 1993), or (c) if it b<strong>in</strong>ds ano<strong>the</strong>r PG (aga<strong>in</strong> Fanselow 1993).<br />
Consequences: Opacity <strong>in</strong> phonology has traditionally served as an argument for derivational <strong>the</strong>ories<br />
(Kenstowicz & Kisseberth 1979). However, with <strong>the</strong> advent of conta<strong>in</strong>ment <strong>the</strong>ory (Pr<strong>in</strong>ce & Smolensky<br />
1993) th<strong>in</strong>gs changed: now it was possible to analyze opacity representationally. Not surpris<strong>in</strong>gly,<br />
<strong>the</strong>n, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>stances of counter-feed<strong>in</strong>g and counter-bleed<strong>in</strong>g discussed above can be reanalyzed by mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
reference to traces, too. However, <strong>the</strong>re is a reason why one should refra<strong>in</strong> from do<strong>in</strong>g so. On <strong>the</strong><br />
one hand, Brody (2001) argues that a <strong>the</strong>ory that is <strong>in</strong>herently derivationally to beg<strong>in</strong> with any resort to<br />
representational concepts should be m<strong>in</strong>imized. To <strong>the</strong> extend that this is conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>g, opacity effects <strong>in</strong><br />
a derivational syntax should be analyzed without reference to traces/copies, as was proposed above. On<br />
<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, it can be argued that streng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> representational character of <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory as a whole<br />
by deriv<strong>in</strong>g scrambl<strong>in</strong>g via base-generation is ceteris paribus, not able to derive <strong>the</strong> facts about opaque<br />
<strong>in</strong>tervention <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> context of PG-b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g and FQ-association discussed above.<br />
Selected references: •Assmann, Anke (2010): Parasitic Gaps <strong>in</strong> Derivational Grammar. Master’s <strong>the</strong>sis, Universität<br />
Leipzig. •Brody, Michael (2001): Some Aspects of Elegant Syntax. Ms., University College London. •Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky, Noam<br />
(2001): Derivation by Phase. In: Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale. A Life <strong>in</strong> Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts,<br />
pp. 1–52. •Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky, Noam (2007): Approach<strong>in</strong>g UG from Below. In: Sauerland & Gärtner, eds, Interfaces + Recursion =<br />
Language? Mouton de Gruyter, Berl<strong>in</strong>, pp. 1–30. •Dikken, Marcel den and René Mulder (1991): ‘Double Object Scrambl<strong>in</strong>g’,<br />
MIT Work<strong>in</strong>g Papers <strong>in</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> 14, 67–82. •Fanselow, Gisbert (1993): ‘Die Rückkehr der Basisgenerierer’, Gron<strong>in</strong>ger<br />
Arbeiten zur Germanistischen L<strong>in</strong>guistik 36, 1–74. •Fanselow, Gisbert (2001): ‘Features, θ-Roles, and Free Constituent Order’,<br />
L<strong>in</strong>guistic Inquiry 32, 405–437. •Müller, Gereon (2010): ‘On Deriv<strong>in</strong>g CED Effects from <strong>the</strong> PIC’, L<strong>in</strong>guistic Inquiry 41, 35–<br />
82. •Müller, Gereon (2011): Constra<strong>in</strong>ts on Displacement. Benjam<strong>in</strong>s, A<strong>ms</strong>terdam. •Reis, Marga (1992): The Category of<br />
Invariant alles <strong>in</strong> Wh-Clauses. In: Tracy, ed., Who Climbs <strong>the</strong> Grammar Tree? Niemeyer, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen, pp. 465–492. •Richards,<br />
Marc (2004): Object Shift and Scrambl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> North and West Germanic: A Case Study <strong>in</strong> Symmetrical Syntax. PhD <strong>the</strong>sis,<br />
University of Cambridge. •Stroik, Thomas (2009): Locality <strong>in</strong> M<strong>in</strong>imalist Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Rebekah Bagl<strong>in</strong>i (Chicago)<br />
Reduced clausal structure <strong>in</strong> comparatives: evidence from Wolof<br />
(Keywords: syntax, phrasal comparatives, clausal comparatives, subject/non-subject asymmetry)<br />
Introduction: A central topic <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> study of comparative constructions cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistically is <strong>the</strong> syntactic<br />
complexity of <strong>the</strong> standard constituent: whe<strong>the</strong>r a simple nom<strong>in</strong>al standard is base generated as a phrase or<br />
derived from a full clause. Clausal standards are assumed to be typologically rarer and restricted to certa<strong>in</strong><br />
grammatical strategies. Although underly<strong>in</strong>g clausal structure has been demonstrated <strong>in</strong> particle comparatives<br />
<strong>in</strong> English, German (Lechner 2001), and Greek (Merchant 2009), Stassen (1985) clai<strong>ms</strong> that exceed<br />
comparatives (a cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistically widespread strategy <strong>in</strong> which comparison is expressed via a transitive<br />
verb mean<strong>in</strong>g ‘exceed’) are categorically restricted to phrasal standards.<br />
This paper represents <strong>the</strong> first formal challenge to Stassen’s prediction, and draws on novel evidence<br />
from Wolof to demonstrate that some exceed comparatives must <strong>in</strong>volve underly<strong>in</strong>g clausal structure <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
standard.<br />
Evidence: The expression of unequal quality comparison <strong>in</strong> Wolof <strong>in</strong>volves <strong>the</strong> comparative ma<strong>in</strong> verb<br />
gen-a, ‘exceed’ or ‘surpass’, comb<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g with a gradable predicate (GP) (1):<br />
(1) Mu-a gën-a-gatt B<strong>in</strong>ta.<br />
3sg-clf surpass-short B<strong>in</strong>ta.<br />
‘S/he is shorter than B<strong>in</strong>ta.’<br />
Stassen’s (1985) classification of gen-a as a phrasal exceed comparative <strong>in</strong>itially see<strong>ms</strong> plausible: no prepositions<br />
or special morphology <strong>in</strong>troduce <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>in</strong> (1) and <strong>the</strong> nom<strong>in</strong>al follow<strong>in</strong>g gen-a+GP appears<br />
to be a simple <strong>in</strong>dividual denot<strong>in</strong>g-expression, a DP. Thus, <strong>the</strong> surface structure of a Wolof comparative<br />
construction like (1) see<strong>ms</strong> consistent with a phrasal analysis, <strong>in</strong> which both <strong>the</strong> target and standard are<br />
arguments of <strong>the</strong> transitive gen-a+GP compound verb.<br />
I argue, however, that <strong>the</strong> apparent surface simplicity of comparative sentences like (1) is mislead<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
First, it is crucial to note that <strong>the</strong> target is obligatorily clefted <strong>in</strong> Wolof comparatives. This is curious<br />
as cleft<strong>in</strong>g is not widespread <strong>in</strong> Wolof, but restricted to <strong>the</strong> expression of focus and <strong>the</strong> formation of whquestions<br />
(Torrence 2005). Clefted arguments with<strong>in</strong> an embedded clause receive no special mark<strong>in</strong>g, but<br />
cleft<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> matrix clause is <strong>in</strong>dicated by dist<strong>in</strong>ctive morphology. The attachment site of <strong>the</strong> copular<br />
cleft marker -a- dist<strong>in</strong>guishes subject cleft (SC) sentences like (1)-(2) from non-subject cleft (NSC) sentences<br />
like (3): -a- follows a subject (pro)nom<strong>in</strong>al <strong>in</strong> SC, and an expletive l- <strong>in</strong> NSC.<br />
(2) subject cleft<br />
Ma-a gën-a-bëgg djënn (*ci) B<strong>in</strong>ta.<br />
1sg-clf surpass-like fish (*ci) B<strong>in</strong>ta.<br />
‘I like fish more than B<strong>in</strong>ta (does).’<br />
(3) non-subject cleft<br />
G<strong>in</strong>aar l-a-a gën-a-bëgg ci djënn.<br />
Chicken l-clf -1sg surpass-like ci fish<br />
‘I like chicken more than fish.’<br />
Besides <strong>the</strong> different morphological mark<strong>in</strong>g of SC and NSC comparative constructions, <strong>the</strong>re is a crucial<br />
asymmetry exhibited by (2) and (3): <strong>the</strong> standard of comparison may be <strong>in</strong>troduced by <strong>the</strong> word ci <strong>in</strong> NSC<br />
constructions, but not <strong>in</strong> SC constructions. Ci most commonly occurs as a locative preposition <strong>in</strong> Wolof,<br />
but it is also known to function as a (prepositional) complementizer <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g a CP (Torrence 2005), as<br />
illustrated <strong>in</strong> (4)-(5):<br />
(4) Da-ma soon ci tóx póón<br />
do-1sg tired c smoke tobacco<br />
‘I’m tired of smok<strong>in</strong>g tobacco.’<br />
(5) Da-ma dogu ci jënd-kó.<br />
do-1sg decide c buy-3s.<br />
‘I decided to buy it.’<br />
If ci <strong>in</strong> sentences (2) and (3) were a simple preposition, <strong>the</strong>re would be no obvious explanation for <strong>the</strong><br />
contrast <strong>in</strong> grammaticality. I argue <strong>in</strong>stead that ci is a prepositional complementizer <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se sentences.<br />
Follow<strong>in</strong>g Merchant (2009)’s analysis of Greek reduced clausal comparatives, I propose that <strong>the</strong> standard<br />
<strong>in</strong> both SC and NSC comparatives <strong>in</strong> Wolof is generated with<strong>in</strong> a full clause and clefted to clause-<strong>in</strong>itial<br />
1
position, trigger<strong>in</strong>g clausal ellipsis. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> standard account of cleft<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Wolof, clefted subjects<br />
move to SpecTP, non-subjects to SpecCP (Torrence 2005). Thus, <strong>the</strong> observed asymmetry between (2)-(3)<br />
with <strong>the</strong> complementizer ci is entirely predicted: while <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>in</strong> both (2) and (3) is generated <strong>in</strong>side<br />
a clause, only <strong>the</strong> latter projects a full CP structure and thus co-occurs with ci.<br />
(2’) sc standard (3’) nsc standard<br />
TP<br />
PP<br />
B<strong>in</strong>tai<br />
T vP<br />
ti<br />
bëgg<br />
likes<br />
v’<br />
djënn<br />
fish<br />
ci CP<br />
djënnk<br />
fish C TP<br />
tk<br />
T vP<br />
1sg v’<br />
Besides expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> asymmetry observed <strong>in</strong> (2)-(3), an additional positive consequence of <strong>the</strong> clausal<br />
analysis proposed here is that it accounts for <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rwise mysterious cleft<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> target <strong>in</strong> Wolof comparatives.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to my analysis, Wolof comparatives embed a full-fledged clausal doma<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong><br />
standard undergoes movement to a clause-<strong>in</strong>itial position, just as has been proposed for clausal comparative<br />
constructions <strong>in</strong> English, German, Greek, and o<strong>the</strong>r languages. The cleft<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> target is thus readily<br />
expla<strong>in</strong>ed as obligatory parallel movement to license ellipsis under identity with <strong>the</strong> standard. The trees <strong>in</strong><br />
(2’) and (3’) illustrate <strong>the</strong> proposed underly<strong>in</strong>g clausal structure for <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>in</strong> sentences (2)-(3).<br />
Conclusion: This paper shows that <strong>the</strong> Wolof gen-a construction is a clausal comparative, <strong>in</strong> which both<br />
target and standard are moved to a clause peripheral position to license ellipsis. This f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g has significant<br />
implications for <strong>the</strong> study of comparatives cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistically, <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that clausal comparatives are not<br />
as typologically rare as is often assumed, nor <strong>in</strong>compatible with exceed strategies of comparison.<br />
References<br />
Lechner, W. 2001. Reduced and phrasal comparatives. Natural Language & L<strong>in</strong>guistic Theory 19:683–735.<br />
Merchant, J. 2009. Phrasal and clausal comparatives <strong>in</strong> Greek and <strong>the</strong>abstractnessofsyntax. Journal of<br />
Greek <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> 9:134–164.<br />
Stassen, L. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.<br />
Torrence, W.H. 2005. On <strong>the</strong> Distribution of Complementizers <strong>in</strong> Wolof. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA.<br />
2<br />
bëgg<br />
like<br />
tk
Stefan Baumann (Köln)<br />
Types of Secondary Prosodic Prom<strong>in</strong>ence and <strong>the</strong>ir Relation to Information<br />
Structure<br />
A l<strong>in</strong>guistic element is prosodically prom<strong>in</strong>ent if it stands out from its neighbour<strong>in</strong>g<br />
elements by virtue of its suprasegmental properties. The prosodic differences between<br />
<strong>the</strong> elements can vary considerably, though. Thus, prosodic prom<strong>in</strong>ence is both gradual<br />
and relational <strong>in</strong> nature. These characteristics lead to proble<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> annotation of<br />
naturally spoken language, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> annotator is forced to classify <strong>in</strong>tonational events<br />
as categories.<br />
In order to circumvent this general problem of gradience/relativity versus categoriality,<br />
several types of 'secondary' prom<strong>in</strong>ences have been proposed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> literature, e.g.<br />
duration accent (Kohler 2005), secondary accent (Chafe 1994), ornamental accent<br />
(Bür<strong>in</strong>g 2007), subord<strong>in</strong>ate/secondary nucleus (Crystal 1969), or phrase accent (Grice et<br />
al. 2000). However, <strong>the</strong> various concepts refer to quite different phenomena or levels,<br />
namely<br />
(a) presence or absence of a pitch movement, i.e. tonal vs. non-‐tonal prom<strong>in</strong>ence<br />
(b) accent type, i.e. <strong>the</strong> form of a pitch movement on a metrically strong syllable<br />
(c) accent position or <strong>the</strong> status of a prom<strong>in</strong>ence <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> prosodic hierarchy<br />
The current paper presents experimental <strong>in</strong>vestigations on <strong>the</strong>se three types of<br />
secondary prosodic prom<strong>in</strong>ences and <strong>the</strong>ir relation to various aspects of <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
structure. First, <strong>in</strong> several acoustic and articulatory production studies on Second<br />
Occurrence Focus (SOF), i.e. words which are both focussed and contextually given, it<br />
could be shown that SOF ite<strong>ms</strong> receive an <strong>in</strong>termediate degree of prom<strong>in</strong>ence (e.g. Féry<br />
& Ishihara (2009) and Baumann et al. (2010) for German) which is not triggered by<br />
tonal movement but by <strong>in</strong>creased duration and <strong>in</strong>tensity (compared to background<br />
elements). The same pattern can be observed <strong>in</strong> some cases of bridg<strong>in</strong>g or 'implicit<br />
<strong>in</strong>ferrability' (Partee 1999), which do not display segmental copies of first occurrence<br />
expressions (cf. Riester & Baumann 2011).<br />
Second, a number of production studies confirmed that different accent types are<br />
related to different degrees of (perceived) givenness or <strong>in</strong>formation status of discourse<br />
referents (Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg 1990, Baumann & Grice 2006). Latest results of<br />
a perception study on German (Röhr & Baumann 2011) revealed a stepwise decrease <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> degree of perceived givenness from deaccentuation and prenuclear accents through<br />
low and early peak nuclear accents to high and ris<strong>in</strong>g nuclear accents. Fur<strong>the</strong>r evidence<br />
for <strong>the</strong> relevance of different accent types <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of an item's <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
status comes from a neurol<strong>in</strong>guistic perception study on <strong>the</strong> prosody of <strong>in</strong>ferentially<br />
accessible referents (Schumacher & Baumann 2010): Three different accent types on a<br />
meronymic expression revealed significant differences <strong>in</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g effort<br />
(deaccentuation > H* > H+L*) <strong>in</strong>dicated by variations <strong>in</strong> event-‐related bra<strong>in</strong> potentials<br />
(<strong>in</strong> particular N400). Crucially, <strong>the</strong> 'secondarily prom<strong>in</strong>ent' accent type H+L* proved to<br />
be <strong>the</strong> most appropriate marker of <strong>the</strong> 'secondarily given' referent.<br />
Third, <strong>the</strong> syntagmatic relation between prosodic prom<strong>in</strong>ences <strong>in</strong>fluences <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
perceived strength degree. In a recent perception study on German (Jagdfeld &<br />
Baumann 2011) subjects clearly dist<strong>in</strong>guished between strongly accented and<br />
unaccented words <strong>in</strong> two different positions with<strong>in</strong> an utterance. However, an order<br />
effect was found for weak pitch accents, which were not perceived as accents <strong>in</strong><br />
prenuclear but <strong>in</strong> nuclear position. In general, listeners proved to be less sensitive to<br />
categorical prom<strong>in</strong>ence judgements <strong>in</strong> prenuclear position (also reflected <strong>in</strong> longer
eaction times) than <strong>in</strong> nuclear position, which <strong>in</strong>dicates <strong>the</strong> special functional status of<br />
nuclear accents.<br />
The <strong>in</strong>sights of <strong>the</strong>se studies lead to <strong>the</strong> proposal of a model of prosodic prom<strong>in</strong>ence<br />
<strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> three levels discussed (see (1)). The model ai<strong>ms</strong> at be<strong>in</strong>g 'truly<br />
autosegmental-‐metrical' <strong>in</strong> that it does not equate prom<strong>in</strong>ence with pitch movement but<br />
that it also takes non-‐tonal criteria such as duration and <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>in</strong>to account. It<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>rmore considers <strong>the</strong> relative position of prom<strong>in</strong>ences with<strong>in</strong> an utterance.<br />
(1) + phonological prom<strong>in</strong>ence -‐<br />
References<br />
nuclear non-‐nuclear<br />
prenuclear postnuclear<br />
metrical level<br />
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐<br />
pitch accents non-‐tonal prom<strong>in</strong>ences tonal level<br />
high ... low duration accent, phrase accent<br />
ris<strong>in</strong>g ... fall<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Baumann, Stefan & Mart<strong>in</strong>e Grice (2006). The Intonation of Accessibility. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (10).<br />
1636-‐1657.<br />
Baumann, Stefan, Doris Mücke & Johannes Becker (2010). Expression of Second Occurrence Focus <strong>in</strong><br />
German. L<strong>in</strong>guistische Berichte 221. 61-‐78.<br />
Bür<strong>in</strong>g, D. (2007). Intonation, Semantics and Information Structure. In: Ramchand, G. Reiss, C. (Eds.), The<br />
Oxford Handbook of L<strong>in</strong>guistic Interfaces.<br />
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London.<br />
Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic Syste<strong>ms</strong> and Intonation <strong>in</strong> English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
Féry, C. & Ishihara, S. (2009). The phonology of second occurrence focus. Journal of <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> 45, 285–<br />
313.<br />
Grice, M., Ladd, D.R., Arvaniti, A., (2000). On <strong>the</strong> Place of Phrase Accents <strong>in</strong> Intonational Phonology.<br />
Phonology 17 (2), 143-‐185.<br />
Jagdfeld, Nils & Stefan Baumann (2011). Order Effects on <strong>the</strong> Perception of Relative Prom<strong>in</strong>ence.<br />
Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs 17th ICPhS, Hongkong, Ch<strong>in</strong>a. 958-‐961.<br />
Kohler, K.J. (2005). Form and Function of Non-‐Pitch Accents. AIPUK 35a. Prosodic Patterns of German<br />
Spontaneous Speech. 97-‐123.<br />
Partee, B. (1999). Focus, Quantification, and Semantics-‐Pragmatics Issues. In: P. Bosch & F. van der Sandt<br />
(eds.), Focus: L<strong>in</strong>guistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives (Studies <strong>in</strong> Natural Language<br />
Process<strong>in</strong>g), Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.<br />
Pierrehumbert, J.B. & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The Mean<strong>in</strong>g of Intonational Contours <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Interpretation of<br />
Discourse. In: P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan, M.E. Pollack, (eds.), Intentions <strong>in</strong> Communication. Cambridge: MIT<br />
Press. 271-‐311.<br />
Riester, Arndt & Stefan Baumann (2011). Information Structure Annotation and Secondary Accents. In:<br />
Dipper, Stefanie & Heike Z<strong>in</strong>smeister (eds.): Beyond Semantics: Corpus-‐based Investigations of Pragmatic<br />
and Discourse Phenomena. Bochumer L<strong>in</strong>guistische Arbeitsberichte 3. 111-‐127.<br />
Röhr, Christ<strong>in</strong>e & Stefan Baumann (2011). Decod<strong>in</strong>g Information Status by Type and Position of Accent <strong>in</strong><br />
German. Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs 17th ICPhS, Hongkong, Ch<strong>in</strong>a. 1706-‐1709.<br />
Schumacher, Petra & Stefan Baumann (2010). Pitch accent type affects <strong>the</strong> N400 dur<strong>in</strong>g referential<br />
process<strong>in</strong>g. NeuroReport 21 (9). 618-‐622.
Krist<strong>in</strong>e Bentzen (Tro<strong>ms</strong>ø/CASTL) & Merete Anderssen (Tro<strong>ms</strong>ø)<br />
Discourse effects on <strong>the</strong> availability of Object Shift<br />
In Norwegian, like <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r Ma<strong>in</strong>land Scand<strong>in</strong>avian language, weak/unstressed pronom<strong>in</strong>al<br />
objects typically undergo Object Shift (OS) across negation, while full DP objects rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> situ:<br />
(1) a. Jeg fant {*huset} ikke {huset}. b. Jeg fant {det} ikke {*det}.<br />
I found house.<strong>the</strong> not house.<strong>the</strong> I found it not it<br />
‘I didn’t f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> house.’ ‘I didn’t f<strong>in</strong>d it.’<br />
However, as shown by Andréasson (2008) and Anderssen et al. (to appear), <strong>the</strong> pronom<strong>in</strong>al<br />
object det ‘it’ has special properties with respect to OS. When this pronoun, which is <strong>the</strong> neuter<br />
form of <strong>the</strong> third person s<strong>in</strong>gular personal pronoun, refers back to an identifiable noun <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
neuter gender, it undergoes OS, as <strong>in</strong> (1). However, det ‘it’ may also have a clausal or VP<br />
referent, or a DP referent with a type <strong>in</strong>terpretation (cf. Houser et al. 2007, Josefsson 2010,<br />
Bor<strong>the</strong>n 2003, Lødrup to appear), and <strong>in</strong> such contexts, it resists OS, despite be<strong>in</strong>g unstressed:<br />
(2) A: Har hun gått hjem? B: Jeg tror {*det CLAUSE} ikke {det CLAUSE}.<br />
has she gone home I th<strong>in</strong>k it. NEUT not it. NEUT<br />
‘Has she gone home?’ ‘I don’t th<strong>in</strong>k so.’ (det = ‘that she has gone home’)<br />
(3) A: Spiste du noe frukt? B: Nei, jeg gjorde {*det VP} ikke {det VP}.<br />
ate you any fruit. MASC no I did it. NEUT not it. NEUT<br />
‘Did you eat any fruit?’ ‘No, I didn’t.’ (det = ‘eat any fruit’)<br />
(4) A: Hva med fisk til middag? B: Nei, Per spiser {#det} ikke {det}.<br />
what with fish. MASC to d<strong>in</strong>ner no Per eats it. NEUT not it. NEUT<br />
‘How about fish for d<strong>in</strong>ner?’ ‘No, Per doesn’t eat that.’ (det=fish as a type of food)<br />
Influenced by Andréasson (2008), Anderssen et al. (to appear) propose an analysis of OS <strong>in</strong><br />
ter<strong>ms</strong> of IP-<strong>in</strong>ternal topicalization, and fur<strong>the</strong>rmore argue that such topicalization only applies to<br />
pronom<strong>in</strong>al objects with an <strong>in</strong>dividuated referent, as <strong>in</strong> (1), while objects with a non-<strong>in</strong>dividuated<br />
referent, such as those <strong>in</strong> (2)-(4) refra<strong>in</strong> from OS. We adopt this approach and develop it fur<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
1. Type of topichood matters<br />
First of all, we connect <strong>the</strong> availability of OS with pronom<strong>in</strong>al det ‘it’ to what type of topic this<br />
pronoun constitutes. We argue that det ‘it’ <strong>in</strong> (1) has <strong>the</strong> typical characteristics of familiar topics<br />
(Frascarelli 2007, Frascarelli & H<strong>in</strong>terhölzl 2007); it is distressed, <strong>in</strong>formationally given, and dl<strong>in</strong>ked<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sense that it has an accessible referent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> discourse. In contrast, det ‘it’ <strong>in</strong> (2)-(4)<br />
refers to what <strong>the</strong> sentence is about, and is hence analysed as an aboutness topic. We thus<br />
propose that OS only applies to familiar topics <strong>in</strong> Norwegian, while aboutness topics typically<br />
rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> situ. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, although <strong>the</strong> pattern <strong>in</strong> (2)-(4) out of context is <strong>the</strong> default word<br />
order when det ‘it’ has a non-<strong>in</strong>dividuated reference, <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> discourse situations OS of even<br />
such <strong>in</strong>stances of det is preferred. The follow<strong>in</strong>g dialogue between speakers ‘Karmøy03_gm’ and<br />
‘Karmøy04_gk’ is taken from spontaneous speech <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nordic Dialect Corpus 1 :<br />
(5) Discourse topic: The problem of tourists hik<strong>in</strong>g on foot <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ski tracks:<br />
Karmøy03_gm: Men problemet var at når da alle fotturistene kom så fant jo ut de at det var<br />
f<strong>in</strong>est å gå i skisporene for da slapp de å vasse.<br />
‘But <strong>the</strong> problem was that when all <strong>the</strong> hik<strong>in</strong>g tourists came, <strong>the</strong>y found out<br />
that it was best to walk <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ski track ‘cause <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>y didn’t have to walk<br />
through snow.’<br />
1<br />
http://www.tekstlab.uio.no/nota/scandiasyn/Search_Facilities.html, cf. Johannessen, Priestley,<br />
Hagen, Åfarli & Vangsnes 2009.
Karmøy04_gk: mm. Var akkurat det så skjedde nå i Bjørgene og sant # at # så alle for og<br />
trødde og så # ødela de.<br />
‘Right. Exactly what happened now <strong>in</strong> Bjørgene, right, # that #, so everyone<br />
stepped around and messed it up’<br />
Karmøy03_gm: mm. Ja # for der er jo ikke kultur her veit du for… Så de skjønner det ikke.<br />
‘Right. Yes # ‘cause <strong>the</strong>re <strong>the</strong>y have no tradition for… So <strong>the</strong>y don’t get it.’<br />
[det = that <strong>the</strong>y shouldn’t hike on foot <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ski tracks]<br />
In this dialogue, we see that <strong>in</strong> ‘Karmøy03_gm’s f<strong>in</strong>al utterance, he uses <strong>the</strong> pronoun det ‘it’ to<br />
refer to a whole clause. However, <strong>in</strong> contrast to (2), it is here perfectly natural to place this<br />
pronoun <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> OS position. We argue that <strong>the</strong> reason for this is that <strong>the</strong> pronoun here refers to <strong>the</strong><br />
topic of <strong>the</strong> whole discourse. Hence it functions as a cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g topic. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Frascarelli &<br />
H<strong>in</strong>terhölzl (2007), cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g topics syntactically/phonologically behave like familiar topics.<br />
Thus, it is expected that it will undergo OS. We <strong>the</strong>refore propose that OS applies to pronom<strong>in</strong>al<br />
objects that constitute ei<strong>the</strong>r familiar or cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g topics, but not to aboutness topics.<br />
2. Parallels between ±OS and it vs. that <strong>in</strong> English<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Gundel et al. (1993) it and that differ <strong>in</strong> cognitive status, it be<strong>in</strong>g IN FOCUS (i.e.<br />
topic) and that be<strong>in</strong>g merely ACTIVATED. Andréasson (2008) has argued that OS <strong>in</strong> Swedish and<br />
Danish applies to IN FOCUS elements. We adopt that proposal, and argue IN FOCUS elements are <strong>in</strong><br />
fact familiar topics. Moreover, compar<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> distribution of it and that <strong>in</strong> English (to <strong>the</strong><br />
distribution of shifted and non-shifted det ‘it’ <strong>in</strong> Norwegian, we demonstrate <strong>the</strong>re is a strik<strong>in</strong>g<br />
correlation between: In contexts where det ‘it’ typically does not undergo OS <strong>in</strong> Norwegian,<br />
Enlgish uses that. In contrast, when det ‘it’ <strong>in</strong> Norwegian undergoes OS, this corresponds to <strong>the</strong><br />
use of it <strong>in</strong> English. Two examples are provided here:<br />
(6) a. John liker å svømme. Maria liker ikke det. b. John liker å svømme. Maria liker det ikke.<br />
John likes to swim Maria likes not it John likes to swim Maria likes it not<br />
‘John likes swimm<strong>in</strong>g. Maria doesn’t like that.’ ‘John likes swimm<strong>in</strong>g. Maria doesn’t like it.’<br />
(det/that = ‘that John likes swimm<strong>in</strong>g’) (det/it = ‘swimm<strong>in</strong>g’)<br />
(7) John gikk til jobben. Maria forventet ikke det 1 . Susanne forventet det 2 heller ikke.<br />
John walked to work.<strong>the</strong> Maria expected not it Susanne expected it ei<strong>the</strong>r not<br />
‘John walked to work. Maria didn’t expect that. Susanne didn’t expect it ei<strong>the</strong>r.’<br />
(both det/that/it = ‘that John walked to work’)<br />
In both <strong>the</strong>se examples, we argue that <strong>the</strong> shifted det and English it are cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g topics,<br />
whereas <strong>the</strong> non-shifted det and English that are aboutness topics. This correlation <strong>the</strong>refore<br />
provides support for our proposal that OS applies to both familiar and cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g topics.<br />
Selected references:<br />
Anderssen et al. To appear. The acquisition of Norwegian Object Shift. Language Acquisition.<br />
Andréasson 2008. Not all objects are born alike. In Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong> LFG08 Conference. Bor<strong>the</strong>n<br />
2003. Norwegian Bare S<strong>in</strong>gulars. Ph.D. <strong>the</strong>sis, NTNU. Frascarelli 2007. Subjects, topics and <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation of referential pro. NLLT 25. Frascarelli & H<strong>in</strong>terhölzl 2007. Types of topics <strong>in</strong> German<br />
and Italian. In On Information Structure, Mean<strong>in</strong>g and Form. Gundel, Hedberg & Zacharski. 1993.<br />
Cognitive status and <strong>the</strong> form of referr<strong>in</strong>g expressions <strong>in</strong> discourse. Language. Houser, Mikkelsen &<br />
Toosarvandani 2007. Verb phrase pronom<strong>in</strong>alization <strong>in</strong> Danish: Deep or surface anaphora? Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Thirty-Fourth Western Conference on <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong>. Josefsson 2010. “Disagree<strong>in</strong>g” pronom<strong>in</strong>al<br />
reference <strong>in</strong> Swedish and <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terplay between formal and semantic gender. L<strong>in</strong>gua 120. Lødrup to<br />
appear. Are Norwegian ‘type anaphora’ really surface anaphora? Journal of Germanic <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong>.
Valent<strong>in</strong>a Bianchi (Siena) & Mara Frascarelli (Roma III)<br />
ON HOW TO BE ROOTED IN A CONTEXT<br />
1. Introduction. The impact of <strong>in</strong>formation-structural categories on <strong>the</strong> formal properties of<br />
<strong>the</strong> sentence has led some authors to assume dedicated discourse/contextual projections <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
C-doma<strong>in</strong> (Rizzi 1997 and related work). However, this conflicts with a strongly modular<br />
view accord<strong>in</strong>g to which only features that are truth-conditionally relevant, but not purely<br />
contextual features, belong <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> syntactic computation (Horvath 2010, Fanselow–Lenertova<br />
2010). The arguments are often focussed on a s<strong>in</strong>gle phenomenon; we contend <strong>in</strong>stead that an<br />
approach compar<strong>in</strong>g different phenomena allows a more comprehensive view of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terplay<br />
between syntax and context. This will be shown by consider<strong>in</strong>g a set of ‘root phenomena’<br />
which can apply <strong>in</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ct types of embedded clauses, requir<strong>in</strong>g a f<strong>in</strong>e-gra<strong>in</strong>ed dist<strong>in</strong>ction <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir distributional properties. Our discussion will focus exclusively on declarative clauses.<br />
2. Data. We show that it is necessary to dist<strong>in</strong>guish at least two types of ‘root phenomena’:<br />
– Type I phenomena occur <strong>in</strong> clauses embedded under bridge verb (e.g. <strong>the</strong> question tag <strong>in</strong><br />
(1)), and <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>terpretation does not <strong>in</strong>teract with elements <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> matrix clause: (a) In Italian,<br />
a fronted focus cannot associate with a matrix clause negation (2); (b) In English, a Left<br />
Dislocated QP <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> embedded clause does not scopally <strong>in</strong>teract with a matrix QP (3):<br />
(1) I {th<strong>in</strong>k/?*am glad} you like it, don’t you?<br />
(2) ?* Leo non ha detto che [DI SARA] è <strong>in</strong>namorato.<br />
Leo NEG has said that WITH SARA (he) is <strong>in</strong>-love<br />
(3) ? Every student tells me that one exam, I can prepare it <strong>in</strong> two weeks (*∀>∃)<br />
– Type II phenomena (German V2, English Topicalization) also occur <strong>in</strong> clauses embedded<br />
under non-bridge verbs (4), and <strong>the</strong>y do not require an <strong>in</strong>dependent <strong>in</strong>terpretation of <strong>the</strong><br />
embedded clause w.r.t. <strong>the</strong> matrix clause: cp. (5) to (2) and (6) to (3):<br />
(4) I am glad that this unreward<strong>in</strong>g job, she has f<strong>in</strong>ally decided to give up.<br />
(5) (?) Hans glaubt NICHT, Peter hat GEWONNEN... (Truckenbrodt 2006, (67))<br />
Hans believes not, Peter has won...<br />
(6) a. Jeder me<strong>in</strong>er Kollegen me<strong>in</strong>te auf e<strong>in</strong> Examen kann ich mich <strong>in</strong>nerhalb von 2 Wochen<br />
vorbereiten. b. Every student tells me that one exam, I can prepare <strong>in</strong> two weeks ( √ ∀>∃)<br />
Draw<strong>in</strong>g a first dist<strong>in</strong>ction, type I phenomena occur <strong>in</strong> discourse active embedded clauses (<strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> sense of Dayal–Gri<strong>ms</strong>haw 2009): <strong>the</strong> proposition expressed bears a non-vacuous update<br />
potential w.r.t. <strong>the</strong> discourse context, because <strong>the</strong> modal base <strong>in</strong>troduced by <strong>the</strong> matrix verb<br />
is not realistic. Type II phenomena also occur <strong>in</strong> embedded clauses whose update potential<br />
gets ‘absorbed’ <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> derived context <strong>in</strong>troduced by <strong>the</strong> matrix attitude verb (Gärtner 2002,<br />
Truckenbrodt 2006; cf. also Krifka 2011, §3.6), with no impact on <strong>the</strong> discourse context. Our<br />
conclusion is that root phenomena are not a unitary class; <strong>the</strong> debate about whe<strong>the</strong>r or not<br />
‘assertive potential’ is a necessary condition for root phenomena (Bentzen et al. 2007) is due<br />
to <strong>the</strong> failure to dist<strong>in</strong>guish <strong>the</strong> two subclasses.<br />
3. Analysis. Step 1: How to characterize <strong>the</strong> two types of root-like embedded clause?<br />
In Stalnaker/Heim update semantics, <strong>the</strong> Context Change Potential (CCP) of an assertion<br />
updates <strong>the</strong> set of shared beliefs of <strong>the</strong> conversational community (common ground), while <strong>in</strong><br />
Gunlogson (2003) it updates <strong>the</strong> set of public commitments of a s<strong>in</strong>gle participant. Farkas–<br />
Bruce (2010) propose a componential view of <strong>the</strong> context which subsumes both <strong>the</strong>se aspects:<br />
an assertion has <strong>the</strong> effect of updat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> speaker’s commitment set and also of project<strong>in</strong>g an<br />
updated common ground. Suppose, however, that <strong>the</strong>se two updates can be separated; we <strong>the</strong>n<br />
have <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g parameters w.r.t. CCP: (i) <strong>in</strong>dividual commitment / (proposed) shared<br />
commitment; (ii) discourse context / derived context <strong>in</strong>troduced by a matrix attitude verb.We
assume that derived contexts do not comprise a shared common ground, but only <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
commitment sets (cf. Truckenbrodt 2006, 281). We obta<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g comb<strong>in</strong>ations:<br />
1. Simple assertion 2. Non-discourse- 3. Discourse-active<br />
active subord<strong>in</strong>ate subord<strong>in</strong>ate<br />
discourse derived discourse derived discourse derived<br />
context context context context context context<br />
Individual commitment + (nil) - + - +<br />
Shared commitment + (nil) - (nil) + (nil)<br />
This view of discourse-active subord<strong>in</strong>ates agrees with Dayal–Gri<strong>ms</strong>haw’s claim that <strong>the</strong><br />
speaker does not commit herself to <strong>the</strong> truth of <strong>the</strong> proposition expressed by <strong>the</strong> subord<strong>in</strong>ate<br />
(pace Hooper–Thompson 1973), yet <strong>the</strong> latter has a proper CCP w.r.t. <strong>the</strong> discourse context.<br />
In o<strong>the</strong>r ter<strong>ms</strong>, <strong>the</strong> speaker places <strong>the</strong> embedded proposition ‘on <strong>the</strong> table’ as a potential<br />
relevant update of <strong>the</strong> shared common ground, without tak<strong>in</strong>g responsibility for its truth.<br />
Step 2: The permissible contexts for root phenomena depend on <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>terpretive impact.<br />
– Type I phenomena are l<strong>in</strong>ked to <strong>the</strong> conversational dynamics. Specifically, we show that:<br />
a) Question tags implement a request for <strong>the</strong> addressee to confirm <strong>the</strong> relevant proposition;<br />
b) Italian focus front<strong>in</strong>g implements a correction (partial reversal of a previous assertion);<br />
c) English LD implements a topic shift, steer<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> conversation toward a new topic.<br />
These conversational moves update <strong>the</strong> shared commitments of <strong>the</strong> conversational<br />
community: this is why type I phenomena are only allowed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first and third clause type.<br />
– Type II phenomena, <strong>in</strong>stead, have no impact on <strong>the</strong> conversational dynamics, but <strong>the</strong>y at<br />
most implement <strong>the</strong> structur<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>in</strong>formation with<strong>in</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>gle assertion: hence, <strong>the</strong>y only<br />
require <strong>the</strong> presence of an <strong>in</strong>dividual commitment set, ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> discourse context or <strong>in</strong> a<br />
derived context. This is why <strong>the</strong>y are licensed <strong>in</strong> all three clause types.<br />
– Type I phenomena are only licensed if <strong>the</strong> proposition expressed by <strong>the</strong> embedded clause<br />
has autonomous CCP w.r.t. <strong>the</strong> matrix clause: this is why <strong>the</strong>re cannot be any scopal<br />
<strong>in</strong>teraction (or association with focus) between a matrix element and an element <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> embedded clause (cf. (2)-(3)), contrary to type II phenomena (cf. (5)-(7)).<br />
4. Consequences. The data <strong>in</strong> (2)-(3) show that <strong>the</strong> discourse active status of <strong>the</strong> subord<strong>in</strong>ate<br />
clause rules out a syntactically and semantically permissible relation between a matrix and an<br />
embedded element. The two compet<strong>in</strong>g views of <strong>the</strong> syntax–context <strong>in</strong>terface <strong>the</strong>n reduce to<br />
<strong>the</strong> opposition between failure–proof grammar vs. «free generation + filter<strong>in</strong>g» (Boeckx 2010,<br />
a.o.). If syntax and semantics are bl<strong>in</strong>d to <strong>the</strong> discourse active status of <strong>the</strong> embedded clause,<br />
(2)-(3) must be filtered out at <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terface with <strong>the</strong> context. (CP-extraposition (Me<strong>in</strong>unger<br />
2004) may account for (2)-(3), but, if it is <strong>in</strong>terface-driven, it still requires reference set<br />
computation and filter<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> non-<strong>in</strong>terface-comply<strong>in</strong>g outputs.) If <strong>in</strong>stead <strong>the</strong> syntax<br />
encodes <strong>the</strong> CCP status of a clause <strong>in</strong> its C head, <strong>the</strong> relevant scope <strong>in</strong>teractions will be<br />
blocked <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> course of <strong>the</strong> derivation. We believe that, by considerations of computational<br />
efficiency, failure-proof computation should be regarded as <strong>the</strong> null hypo<strong>the</strong>sis.<br />
[1] Bentzen et al 2007. Work<strong>in</strong>g Papers <strong>in</strong> Scand<strong>in</strong>avian Syntax 79, 93–118. [2] Boeckx<br />
2010. In Putnam (ed.), Explor<strong>in</strong>g Crash-Proof Grammars, 105–124. Benjam<strong>in</strong>s. [3] Dayal–<br />
Gri<strong>ms</strong>haw 2009. Subord<strong>in</strong>ation at <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terface. Ms., Rutgers Univ. [4] Fanselow–Lenertova<br />
2011. NLLT 29, 169-209. [5] Farkas–Bruce 2010. J. Semantics 27, 81–118. [6] Gärtner 2002.<br />
Theoretical <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> 28, 33–42. [7] Gunlogson 2003. True to Form. Routledge. [7] Horvath<br />
2010. L<strong>in</strong>gua 120, 1346–1369. [8] Hooper–Thompson 1973. LI 4, 465–497. [9] Krifka 2011.<br />
Embedd<strong>in</strong>g speech acts. Ms., Humboldt Univ. zu Berl<strong>in</strong>. [10] Me<strong>in</strong>unger 2004. In Lohnste<strong>in</strong>–<br />
Trissler (eds.), The Syntax and Semantics of <strong>the</strong> Left Periphery, 313–341. Mouton de Gruyter.<br />
[11] Rizzi 1997. In Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Kluwer. [12]<br />
Truckenbrodt 2006. Theoretical <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> 32, 257–306.
Jason Bishop (UCLA)<br />
Information structure, prosodic prom<strong>in</strong>ence and <strong>in</strong>dividual differences:<br />
evidence from on-l<strong>in</strong>e process<strong>in</strong>g<br />
In <strong>the</strong> present study we explored listeners’ knowledge about how prosody can express<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation structure <strong>in</strong> English. In particular, we probed listeners for expectations regard<strong>in</strong>g<br />
how prosodic prom<strong>in</strong>ence relates to <strong>the</strong> size of <strong>the</strong> focus constituent (broad vs. narrow) <strong>in</strong><br />
SVO constructions. While it is well-known that <strong>the</strong> prosodic realizations of contrasts along<br />
this dimension are ambiguous <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of nuclear pitch accent location, recent studies have<br />
shown that speakers can dist<strong>in</strong>guish <strong>the</strong>m us<strong>in</strong>g gradient phonetic cues. In particular, it has<br />
been reported that (a) narrow focus on an object is associated with phonetically lower<br />
prenuclear prom<strong>in</strong>ence and/or phonetically higher nuclear prom<strong>in</strong>ence, and (b) broader VP<br />
and Sentence focus show <strong>the</strong> opposite pattern (e.g., Breen et al. 2010 and references <strong>the</strong>re<strong>in</strong>).<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>r, it has also been shown that, <strong>in</strong> perception, listeners exhibit expectations for exactly<br />
this asymmetry (e.g., Bishop 2010). In <strong>the</strong> present study, we made use of <strong>the</strong> cross-modal<br />
associative prim<strong>in</strong>g paradigm to probe on-l<strong>in</strong>e process<strong>in</strong>g mechanis<strong>ms</strong> for a similar<br />
sensitivity.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> experiment presented, 174 English-speak<strong>in</strong>g listeners made lexical decisions<br />
about 32 visual targets (e.g., BRUNETTE) which followed auditorily-presented SVO sentences<br />
<strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> object was <strong>the</strong> prime (e.g., He kissed a blonde).<br />
To test for <strong>the</strong> effects of<br />
prosody, sentences were heard by listeners with two different patterns of prom<strong>in</strong>ence: high<br />
prenuclear prom<strong>in</strong>ence/low nuclear prom<strong>in</strong>ence (ToBI annotations with H* on <strong>the</strong> verb and<br />
!H* on <strong>the</strong> object) and low prenuclear/high nuclear prom<strong>in</strong>ence (unaccented verb and (L+)H*<br />
on <strong>the</strong> object). To hold <strong>the</strong>ir acoustic properties constant, <strong>the</strong> primes <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> two conditions<br />
were identical productions, spliced <strong>in</strong>to different SV productions (see Fig 1). These two<br />
prosodic conditions were <strong>the</strong>n crossed with two focus conditions. The first represented our<br />
primary <strong>in</strong>formation structural <strong>in</strong>terest, namely focus size (broad VP vs. narrow object focus);<br />
however, we also explored <strong>the</strong> possible effect of focus type (non-contrastive/WH focus vs.<br />
contrastive focus). Focus size and type were manipulated us<strong>in</strong>g lead-<strong>in</strong> questions (e.g., What<br />
did John do? for broad VP focus and Who did John kiss? for narrow object focus), with<br />
explicit alternatives offered (Did John kiss Mary?) <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of contrastive focus.<br />
Mixed-effects l<strong>in</strong>ear regression was used to model listeners’ reaction times <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
lexical decision task as a function of our manipulations, and also several stimuli and listener<br />
variables. Among <strong>the</strong>se were scores on <strong>the</strong> Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ; Baron-Cohen et<br />
al. 2001), recently shown to be a predictor of performance <strong>in</strong> speech perception and<br />
pragmatic tasks by “normal-function<strong>in</strong>g” adults (Yu 2010; Xiang, Grove and Giannakidou<br />
2011). Results were as follows. The most significant f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g was that lexical decision times<br />
were slowest follow<strong>in</strong>g a prime that was <strong>in</strong>terpreted as a narrow contrastive focus, but bore<br />
an accent that was low <strong>in</strong> relative prom<strong>in</strong>ence (Fig 2). This disruption to prim<strong>in</strong>g is<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpreted as <strong>the</strong> result of a focus/ prosody mis-match, and is consistent with our prediction<br />
regard<strong>in</strong>g listeners’ expectations. Also consistent with those predictions was <strong>the</strong> fact that<br />
response times were fastest when <strong>the</strong> prime was narrowly focused and high <strong>in</strong> relative<br />
prom<strong>in</strong>ence. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly, however, it was found that <strong>the</strong> advantage from this focusprom<strong>in</strong>ence<br />
match depended considerably on listeners’ AQ scores, as listeners with more<br />
“autistic” traits benefited less (Fig 3). Taken toge<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> results provide strong evidence that<br />
English-speak<strong>in</strong>g listeners have conventionalized knowledge about <strong>the</strong> relationship between<br />
focus size and prosodic prom<strong>in</strong>ence, as this knowledge was found to have psychologically<br />
real consequences. We discuss <strong>the</strong>se results and <strong>the</strong>ir fur<strong>the</strong>r implications for <strong>the</strong> relationship<br />
between prosody and <strong>in</strong>formation structure, sentence and lexical process<strong>in</strong>g, and <strong>the</strong><br />
relevance of <strong>in</strong>dividual differences <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic process<strong>in</strong>g.
Fig1. Example of <strong>the</strong> two prosodic conditions. Sentences were presented with ei<strong>the</strong>r high<br />
prenuclear/low nuclear prom<strong>in</strong>ence (left), or low prenuclear/high nuclear prom<strong>in</strong>ence (right).<br />
Primes (always <strong>the</strong> nuclear accented object) were thus relatively high or relatively lower <strong>in</strong><br />
prom<strong>in</strong>ence.<br />
Fig 2. Mean reaction times to targets as a<br />
function of a preced<strong>in</strong>g prime word’s focus<br />
size and relative prosodic prom<strong>in</strong>ence.<br />
Fig 3. Benefit from a focus-prom<strong>in</strong>ence<br />
match: mean RTs to targets follow<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
prom<strong>in</strong>ent prime that was narrowly<br />
focused and highly prom<strong>in</strong>ent. Three AQ<br />
groups of listeners are shown (higher AQ<br />
scores <strong>in</strong>dicate more prom<strong>in</strong>ent “autistic”<br />
traits).<br />
References<br />
Bishop, J. (2010). Information structural expectations <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> perception of prosodic<br />
prom<strong>in</strong>ence, UCLA Work<strong>in</strong>g Papers <strong>in</strong> Phonetics, 108, 223-225.<br />
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Sk<strong>in</strong>ner, R., Mart<strong>in</strong>, J., Clubley, E. (2001). The Autism-<br />
Spectrum Quotient (AQ): evidence from Asperger Syndrome/high-function<strong>in</strong>g autism,<br />
males and females, scientists and ma<strong>the</strong>maticians. Journal of Autism and Developmental<br />
Disorders 31, 5-17.<br />
Breen, M., Fedorenko E., Wagner., M, & Gibson, E. (2010). Acoustic correlates of<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 25, 1044-1098.<br />
Yu, A.C.L. (2010). Perceptual compensation is correlated with <strong>in</strong>dividuals' “autistic” traits:<br />
implications for models of sound change. PLoS ONE, 5, e11950.<br />
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011950<br />
Xiang, M., Grove, J., Giannakidou, A. (2011). Interference “licens<strong>in</strong>g” of NPIs: pragmatic<br />
reason<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>in</strong>dividual differences. Poster presented at <strong>the</strong> 2011 CUNY Conference on<br />
Sentence Process<strong>in</strong>g.
In search of (im)perfection: <strong>the</strong> illusion of counterfactual aspect<br />
Puzzle: It has long been noticed that <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> grammatical contexts, morphemes that o<strong>the</strong>rwise<br />
contribute temporal mean<strong>in</strong>gs suddenly fail to do so. One such context is counterfactual<br />
conditionals (CFs), which <strong>in</strong> many languages are marked by “fake” tense and aspect (Iatridou,<br />
2000).Example (1) from Greek illustrates both past and imperfective morphology used to mark<br />
afuture-less-vividconditional:<br />
(1) [An<br />
if<br />
Bronwyn M. Bjorkman (Nor<strong>the</strong>astern) & Claire Halpert (MIT)<br />
peTene<br />
die.PST.IMP<br />
o<br />
<strong>the</strong><br />
arXiGos]<br />
chief<br />
Ta<br />
FUT<br />
ton Tavame st<strong>in</strong> korifi tu vunu<br />
him bury.PST.IMP on.<strong>the</strong> top <strong>the</strong> mounta<strong>in</strong><br />
‘If <strong>the</strong> chief died, we would bury him on <strong>the</strong> top of <strong>the</strong> mounta<strong>in</strong>.’ (Iatridou, 2000)<br />
The use of “fake” past morphology associated with CF <strong>in</strong>terpretations has been widely<br />
documented (Steele, 1975; James, 1982; Iatridou, 2000, a.o.). Several proposals analyze fake<br />
past as <strong>the</strong> locus of CF semantics, ei<strong>the</strong>r by constru<strong>in</strong>g “past”asamarkerofmodal,ra<strong>the</strong>rthan<br />
temporal, remoteness (Steele, 1975; Iatridou, 2000; RitterandWiltschko,2010)orbyderiv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
CF mean<strong>in</strong>g from a purely temporal past (Ippolito, 2002; Arregui, 2009). It has been claimed<br />
that fake imperfective is also <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> CF mark<strong>in</strong>g, though itsuseislesswell-understood:<br />
for Iatridou (2000, 2009) imperfective <strong>in</strong> CFs is a default aspect; Arregui (2004) clai<strong>ms</strong> that<br />
it reflects <strong>in</strong>compatibility between perfective and CFs; while Ippolito (2004) proposes that a<br />
“modal imperfective” reflects a speaker’s <strong>in</strong>direct evidence foraproposition. Iatridou(2009)<br />
proposes that imperfective-marked CFs occur <strong>in</strong> a subset of <strong>the</strong> languages with past-marked<br />
CFs, a generalization she based on <strong>the</strong> fact that Slavic languages have “fake” past but “real”<br />
aspect <strong>in</strong> CFs. In this paper we show that a full typology <strong>in</strong>cludes languages with “fake”<br />
perfective aspect <strong>in</strong> CFs as well, contradict<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>se previous approaches.<br />
Proposal: We argue that <strong>the</strong> apparent requirement for imperfective <strong>in</strong> CFs <strong>in</strong> some languages<br />
is illusory, amorphologicalreflexof<strong>the</strong>needtorealizeatruePAST feature. “Past<br />
imperfective” morphology <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se languages actually expresses only PAST, weclaim;itreceives<br />
an imperfective <strong>in</strong>terpretation due to contrast with atruePERFECTIVE. In CFs, this<br />
“past imperfective” morphology reflects only CF “past”; it does not reflect syntactic IMPER-<br />
FECTIVE features. We illustrate this proposal with <strong>the</strong> morphological paradigm of three types<br />
of languages: (a) Greek, Romance, and Zulu, where imperfective unspecified and see<strong>ms</strong> to occur<br />
<strong>in</strong> CFs; (b) Arabic, where perfective is unspecified and occurs <strong>in</strong> CFs; and (c) Slavic, where<br />
PAST is specified <strong>in</strong>dependently of aspect, and CFs preserve full aspectual contrasts.<br />
Pattern A: In languages like Greek and Romance, where <strong>the</strong> puzzle of fake CF imperfective<br />
<strong>in</strong>itially arose, CFs are always marked with past-imperfective morphology, while “real” tense<br />
and aspect is suppressed, as illustrated above <strong>in</strong> (1).<br />
We argue based on <strong>in</strong>dependent evidence that this pattern arises because <strong>the</strong> “past imperfective”<br />
encodes only PAST features and is unspecified for aspect; “past perfective”, by contrast,<br />
expresses only PERFECTIVE aspect, and receives a past <strong>in</strong>terpretation by default, due to<strong>in</strong>compatibility<br />
between perfective and present tense (Dahl, 1985). The imperfective <strong>in</strong>terpretation of<br />
<strong>the</strong> “past imperfective” arises due to <strong>the</strong> absence of a privative PERFECTIVE feature.<br />
The absence of “real” aspect mark<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> CFs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se languages arisesbecausePAST and<br />
PERFECTIVE morphemes compete for realization <strong>in</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>gle position. In Zulu, which we argue<br />
has <strong>the</strong> same morphological specifications as Greek and Romance and thus appears to require<br />
“past imperfective” mark<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> CFs, a perfective suffix can co-occur with this “fake imperfective”<br />
<strong>in</strong> perfective CFs, though <strong>the</strong> two are normally <strong>in</strong>compatible (due to <strong>the</strong> redundancy of<br />
mark<strong>in</strong>g both PAST and PERFECTIVE when both are <strong>in</strong>terpreted temporally):<br />
(2) [ukuba be- ngi-thimulile ]be-ngi-zo-d<strong>in</strong>gaithishi<br />
if PST.IMP1SGsneeze PFV IMP-1SG-FUT-need 5tissue<br />
‘If I had sneezed, I would have needed a tissue.’<br />
1
What dist<strong>in</strong>guishes Zulu from languages like Greek and Romance is that PAST and PERFEC-<br />
TIVE do not compete for a s<strong>in</strong>gle morphological “slot”; as a result, realPERFECTIVE features<br />
and fake PAST features can both be realized on a s<strong>in</strong>gle verb.<br />
Pattern B: Fur<strong>the</strong>r evidence for our approach comes from CF mark<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Arabic, a language<br />
<strong>in</strong> which perfective, ra<strong>the</strong>rthanimperfective,isrequired<strong>in</strong>CFs. Wearguethat<strong>the</strong><br />
morphological specification <strong>in</strong> this language is <strong>the</strong> reverse of Pattern A languages: here “past<br />
perfective” is simply specified for syntactic PAST features, while “imperfective” is underspecified<br />
for tense (see Benmamoun 2000, Karawani & Zeijlstra 2010, Bjorkman 2011, a.o. for<br />
<strong>in</strong>dependent evidence of this feature specification).<br />
(3) [iza úileQ halaP,] kaan b-iwsal Qal waPt la l-muèaadara<br />
if leave.PST.PFV now, be.PST B-arrive.IMP on <strong>the</strong>-time for <strong>the</strong>-lecture<br />
‘If he left now, he would arrive on time for <strong>the</strong> lecture.’ (Halpert and Karawani, 2011)<br />
Like Zulu, Arabic expresses real tense and aspect <strong>in</strong> CFs via an auxiliary<strong>in</strong>aseparate<br />
position from fake past. Auxiliary kaan, whichisa“perfective”formof<strong>the</strong>verb,markspast<br />
tense alone, while real temporal morphology occurs on <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> verb:<br />
(4) [iza kanno b-yitlaQ bakkeer kul yom,] kaan b-iwsal Qa l-waPt<br />
if be.PST B-leave.IMP early every day, be.PST B-arrive.IMP on <strong>the</strong>-time<br />
‘If he were <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> habit of leav<strong>in</strong>g early, he would arrive on time.’ (H&K)<br />
This ability of <strong>the</strong> past perfective auxiliary kaan alone to mark CFs supports <strong>the</strong> view that<br />
<strong>the</strong> “past perfective” CF mark<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> (3) is <strong>the</strong> exponent of PAST features only.<br />
Pattern C: F<strong>in</strong>ally, Slavic allows full aspectual contrasts <strong>in</strong> CFs, as <strong>in</strong>(5)fromRussian:<br />
(5) a. Esli by Dˇzon umer, my poxoroni-l-i by ego na gor-e.<br />
if SUBJ J. die.PFV.PST we bury.PFV-PST-PL SUBJ he.ACC on mounta<strong>in</strong>-LOC<br />
‘If John died, we would bury him on <strong>the</strong> mounta<strong>in</strong>.’<br />
b. Esli by Dˇzon umira-l, s nim by-l by doktor.<br />
if SUBJ J. die.IMPF-PST with he.INSTR be-PST SUBJ doctor<br />
‘If John were dy<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> doctor would be with him.’<br />
We propose that <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se languages, unlike <strong>in</strong> Patterns A and B, PAST, PERFECTIVE, and<br />
IMPERFECTIVE all have separate morphological exponents. Evidence for this can be found <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> existence of morphological past and present for<strong>ms</strong> for imperfective and perfective verbs<br />
<strong>in</strong> Slavic (though a morphological “present” perfective receives a future <strong>in</strong>terpretation). As a<br />
result, real aspectual features PERFECTIVE and IMPERFECTIVE can both be realized <strong>in</strong> addition<br />
to <strong>the</strong> fake PAST mark<strong>in</strong>g required by CFs and <strong>the</strong> illusion of counterfactual aspect disappears.<br />
Implications: The claim that “past imperfective” morphology expresses only PAST features,<br />
and that “imperfective” <strong>in</strong> past-marked CFs is illusory, br<strong>in</strong>gs us closer to understand<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> broader contextual requirement for PAST <strong>in</strong> CFs. We argue that perfective morphology<br />
cannot mark CFs <strong>in</strong> Pattern A because “past perfective” does not express PAST features <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>se languages. Given that past perfectives have past <strong>in</strong>terpretations, we argue that it is past<br />
tense features, ra<strong>the</strong>rthanpasttense<strong>in</strong>terpretations, thatresult<strong>in</strong>CF<strong>in</strong>terpretations. Iftrue,<br />
this proposal is an argument <strong>in</strong> favor of analyses <strong>in</strong> which PAST features represent a broader<br />
temporal or modal “exclusion” (Iatridou, 2000) or [-co<strong>in</strong>cidence] (Ritter and Wiltschko, 2010)<br />
feature, and aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> view that <strong>the</strong> past mark<strong>in</strong>g of CFs reflects <strong>the</strong> contribution of past tense<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation (Arregui, 2009; Ippolito, 2002).<br />
Selected References: Arregui, A. 2009. On similarity <strong>in</strong> counterfactuals. L&P 32.; Halpert, C., & H. Karawani.<br />
2011. Aspect <strong>in</strong> counterfactuals from A(rabic) to Z(ulu). WCCFL 29.; Iatridou, S. 2000. The grammatical <strong>in</strong>gredients<br />
of counterfactuality. LI 31.; — 2010. Some thoughts about <strong>the</strong> imperfective <strong>in</strong> counterfactuals. Handout.;<br />
Ippolito, M. 2002. On <strong>the</strong> Semantic Composition of Subjunctive Conditionals. Ms. MIT/Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen.; — 2004.<br />
Imperfect modality. In The syntax of time. MITPress.;Ritter, E., & M. Wiltschko. 2010. The composition of<br />
INFL. L<strong>in</strong>gBuzz/001078.<br />
2
Andreas Blümel (Goe<strong>the</strong>-Universität Frankfurt am Ma<strong>in</strong>)<br />
Successive-cyclic Movement as <strong>in</strong>termediate Labell<strong>in</strong>g Indeterm<strong>in</strong>acies<br />
Background: Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky (2008) proposes (1-a) as an algorithm to determ<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> label when two<br />
syntactic objects undergo external merge (EM, a symmetric process of set-formation) and (1-b)<br />
for <strong>in</strong>ternal merge (IM). Both statements express <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> set result<strong>in</strong>g from IM/EM<br />
must be identified to participate <strong>in</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r operations. But especially <strong>the</strong> stipulation (1-b) is<br />
dubious on conceptual grounds and failures of <strong>the</strong> application of (1-b) have been claimed to be<br />
empirically desireable to derive free relatives among o<strong>the</strong>r constructions (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2008, Citko<br />
2008, Ott 2011a). Thus (1-b) is better derived from <strong>in</strong>dependent factors. There is no shortage<br />
of proposals accord<strong>in</strong>g to which ‘reprojection’ of <strong>the</strong> mov<strong>in</strong>g XP may take place (Citko 2008,<br />
Georgi/Müller 2010, Hornste<strong>in</strong>/Uriagereka 2002), but <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se works violations of (1-b) serve<br />
as descriptive devices, not as sources of (failures to apply) (1-b).<br />
Already for EM Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky (2008:fn.34) addresses an exception to <strong>the</strong> application of (1-a),<br />
namely EM of a subject-DP to v*P as <strong>in</strong> (2): “[T]hese structures lack a label and have an<br />
<strong>in</strong>herent <strong>in</strong>stability, so that one of <strong>the</strong> two members [. . . ] must raise.” An attractive side-effect<br />
of this idea is that it gives a partial explanation for <strong>the</strong> EPP: <strong>the</strong> symmetry created by EM<br />
is broken by IM of <strong>the</strong> subject to Spec-TP. Recently, a number of works have capitalized on<br />
this idea and suggested that <strong>in</strong>stances of IM are ‘triggered’ by <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terfaces’ avoidance and<br />
<strong>in</strong>tolerance of symmetry and ambiguity created by narrow syntax (Boecks 2008:116-118, Moro<br />
2008, Ott 2011b). When one of <strong>the</strong> two members <strong>in</strong> (2) moves at <strong>the</strong> phase level, an asymmetry<br />
and concomitantly <strong>the</strong> label (3) is created: IM of DP yields a discont<strong>in</strong>uous object, a set of<br />
occurrences of DP, while v* is identified as <strong>the</strong> label (boldfaced on <strong>the</strong> right <strong>in</strong> (3)); just as only<br />
<strong>the</strong> head of a movement cha<strong>in</strong> can move and cause <strong>in</strong>tervention for Agree, only <strong>the</strong> head of a<br />
movement cha<strong>in</strong> is elegible for labell<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Proposal: Adopt<strong>in</strong>g phase <strong>the</strong>ory, I propose that such ‘<strong>in</strong>stable’ structures may not only result<br />
from EM but also from IM (cf. also Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2010): symmetry-break<strong>in</strong>g movement effectively<br />
leaves <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>-situ category as <strong>the</strong> label. But IM results aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> a symmetric, unlabellable<br />
structure <strong>in</strong> need of desymmetrization once we partially dispense with (1-b). Thus <strong>the</strong> process<br />
solves <strong>the</strong> labell<strong>in</strong>g problem downstairs, but only to create a new one <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> target. I claim that<br />
this pr<strong>in</strong>cipally <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite symmetry-destroy<strong>in</strong>g/symmetry-creat<strong>in</strong>g character of derivations is <strong>the</strong><br />
source, i.e. <strong>the</strong> ‘trigger’ of <strong>in</strong>termediate steps of successive-cyclic A’-movement, <strong>the</strong> empirical<br />
doma<strong>in</strong> to which I conf<strong>in</strong>e myself here. The symmetry-avoid<strong>in</strong>g character at Transfer (i.e. at<br />
<strong>the</strong> next higher phase) is thus what derives (1-b): <strong>the</strong> target category becomes <strong>the</strong> label due to<br />
<strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> mov<strong>in</strong>g XP must move fur<strong>the</strong>r to break <strong>the</strong> newly created symmetry. Of course,<br />
this powerful mechanism needs tam<strong>in</strong>g. I propose that Agree between a phase-head and <strong>the</strong><br />
mov<strong>in</strong>g WH-element does just that: at <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t when a C-head with an unvalued Q-feature<br />
is merged, it probes for (<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretable Q-feature on) <strong>the</strong> WH-element. It is <strong>the</strong> successful<br />
prob<strong>in</strong>g relationship which ultimately and effectively br<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>the</strong> WH-element to a halt, captured<br />
<strong>in</strong> (4) (taken from Boeckx 2008:91-98): as <strong>the</strong> probe becomes <strong>the</strong> label by (4), movement of<br />
XP to Spec-probe creates a symmetry which is unproblematic, because (4) renders <strong>the</strong> structure<br />
sufficiently asymmetric for label determ<strong>in</strong>ation. The probe functions similar to what Boeckx<br />
(2003) calls ‘Strong Occurrences’ and Rizzi (2006) ‘Criterial Positions.’<br />
Consider (5), an abstract partial representation of <strong>the</strong> pervasive, structurally unbounded phenomenon<br />
of successive-cyclic WH-movement: an object WH-element ends up <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> specifier<br />
of <strong>the</strong> phase head v* (for <strong>in</strong>dependent reasons). At this derivational stage v* or WH may determ<strong>in</strong>e<br />
<strong>the</strong> label. At <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t when C merges, IM of <strong>the</strong> WH-phrase to Spec-CP asymmetrizes<br />
<strong>the</strong> structure, solv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> labell<strong>in</strong>g problem as far as <strong>the</strong> TP is concerned: TP-<strong>in</strong>ternally, v* determ<strong>in</strong>es<br />
<strong>the</strong> label because IM applies to WH, stabiliz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> structure (6). But <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> result<strong>in</strong>g<br />
1
workspace <strong>the</strong> label <strong>in</strong>determ<strong>in</strong>acy problem once aga<strong>in</strong> arises, i.e. <strong>the</strong> edge{WH{C{. . .}}} is<br />
aga<strong>in</strong> ‘too symmetric’ and unstable. In this sense <strong>the</strong> edge configurations <strong>in</strong> (2)/(5) and (6) are<br />
parallel. Aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> asymmetry is restored once WH moves on (on <strong>the</strong> right <strong>in</strong> (6)).<br />
In (7-a) <strong>the</strong> matrix verb doesn’t select an <strong>in</strong>direct question. A spurious [WH]/[EPP]-feature<br />
on <strong>the</strong> embedded C head to derive <strong>in</strong>termediate movement steps is thus dubious and ad hoc.<br />
Under <strong>the</strong> present analysis, <strong>the</strong> successive-cyclic character of long WH-movement follows automatically<br />
from <strong>the</strong> symmetry-avoid<strong>in</strong>g character <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terfaces impose on each <strong>in</strong>termediate<br />
configuration. What blocks movement to <strong>the</strong> matrix Spec-C <strong>in</strong> cases like (8-a), i.e. why don’t<br />
we have to get (8-b)? I propose that <strong>in</strong>terrogative C bears a prob<strong>in</strong>g Q-feature which Agrees<br />
with <strong>the</strong> WH-word. Such a feature appears plausible as <strong>the</strong> CP is selected by wonder. By contrast,<br />
such an Agree relation between non-<strong>in</strong>terrogative C (=that) and which book is crucially<br />
miss<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> (7-a), which is why (7-b) is out: <strong>the</strong> WH-word is stuck <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> symmetric structure{WH{C=that<br />
. . .}}, where an <strong>in</strong>termediate labell<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>determ<strong>in</strong>acy arises which rema<strong>in</strong>s<br />
unresolved. In (8-a)/(9) on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, Agree(uQ,WH) determ<strong>in</strong>es C as <strong>the</strong> label by (4).<br />
Whe<strong>the</strong>r or not IM of WH takes place at this po<strong>in</strong>t is irrelevant for labell<strong>in</strong>g: if WH moves, no<br />
problematic symmetry arises, as (4) renders C <strong>the</strong> label. But notice that WH has to move, because<br />
<strong>the</strong> labell<strong>in</strong>g question between v and WH is still not decided. Once <strong>the</strong> labell<strong>in</strong>g question<br />
is settled for v/WH (i.e. by mov<strong>in</strong>g WH), no fur<strong>the</strong>r movement is enforced despite <strong>the</strong> fact that<br />
<strong>the</strong> WH-element ends up be<strong>in</strong>g a sister of C. As no fur<strong>the</strong>r movement is enforced by symmetry,<br />
I take it that fur<strong>the</strong>r movement must not take place. In this sense, <strong>the</strong> function of (4) <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
current system is to stop fur<strong>the</strong>r movement, i.e. to prevent fur<strong>the</strong>r symmetries. Notice also that<br />
after Agree(uQ,WH) Q is valued, which means that for SEM it becomes <strong>in</strong>dist<strong>in</strong>guishable from<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretable Q-features. As such it must be selected by <strong>in</strong>terrogative-embedd<strong>in</strong>g predicates,<br />
and no fur<strong>the</strong>r dist<strong>in</strong>ctions (as <strong>in</strong> Pesetsky/Torrego 2007) are needed.<br />
Consequences: The current analysis reconciles tensions between ‘late trigger’ <strong>the</strong>ories of successivecyclic<br />
movement that rely on (variants of) stipulations like Shortes Steps or <strong>the</strong> M<strong>in</strong>imize Cha<strong>in</strong><br />
L<strong>in</strong>ks Condition (cf. Boeckx 2003 and references <strong>the</strong>re<strong>in</strong>) on <strong>the</strong> one hand, and ‘early trigger’<br />
<strong>the</strong>ories that rely on spurious <strong>in</strong>termediate WH/EPP/Edge-features on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r (cf. Pesetsky/Torrego<br />
2007 among o<strong>the</strong>rs). The former are problematic <strong>in</strong> that <strong>the</strong>y violate <strong>the</strong> Extension<br />
Condition and are <strong>in</strong>compatible with phases. The latter rely on stipulated <strong>in</strong>termediate features<br />
to trigger movement. Also, <strong>the</strong> current analysis is less costly than Boˇsković’s (2007) <strong>in</strong><br />
requir<strong>in</strong>g less features: movement is a by-product of labell<strong>in</strong>g, which <strong>in</strong> his work is implicitly<br />
presupposed (and stipulated) to work without justification. But goal-driven movement is<br />
superfluous under <strong>the</strong> current assumptions.<br />
(1) a. if EM of XP and simplex H yields{H, XP}, <strong>the</strong>n H is <strong>the</strong> label<br />
b. ifαundergoes IM toβ, form<strong>in</strong>g{α,β} <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> label ofβis <strong>the</strong> label of{α,β}<br />
(2) {DP{v* . . .}}<br />
(3) C{DP{T{〈DP〉{v* . . .}}}}→C{DP{T{〈DP〉{v* . . .}}}}<br />
(4) Probe-Label Correspondence Axiom: The label of{α,β} is whichever ofαorβprobes<br />
<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r, where <strong>the</strong> Probe=Lexical Item whose uF gets valued<br />
(5) {WH v*{. . .}}<br />
(6) {WH C{. . . T{〈WH〉 v*{. . .}}}}→WH . . .{〈WH〉 C{. . . T{〈WH〉 v*{. . .}}}}<br />
(7) a. [Which book]i do you [vP ti th<strong>in</strong>k/believe [CP ti C=that Mary [vP ti wrote ti]]]<br />
b. *You th<strong>in</strong>k/believe which book (that) Mary wrote?<br />
(8) a. John wonders [what C Mary will eat]<br />
b. *What does John wonder Mary will eat?<br />
(9) [C [uQ] [. . . [v∗P what[Q] [v*=eat . . . ]]]]<br />
2
Lucas Champollion (Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen)<br />
Temporal dependencies: Anaphora vs. movement<br />
Temporal dependencies provide a useful testbed for syntactic and semantic <strong>the</strong>ories of<br />
mean<strong>in</strong>g/context <strong>in</strong>teraction. In this talk, I consider two k<strong>in</strong>ds of temporal dependencies:<br />
those that hold between temporal adjuncts as <strong>in</strong> (1a) and (1b), and those that hold<br />
between before and its complement, as <strong>in</strong> (2a).<br />
(1) a. Last year, it ra<strong>in</strong>ed every day.<br />
b. Last year, it ra<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> afternoon.<br />
(2) a. John left before Mary claimed she would arrive.<br />
b. John left before Mary made <strong>the</strong> claim that she would arrive.<br />
These dependencies are rem<strong>in</strong>iscent of well-known phenomena such as quantifier doma<strong>in</strong><br />
restriction, pronoun b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g, and movement. For example, it looks like Last year restricts<br />
<strong>the</strong> doma<strong>in</strong> of every day <strong>in</strong> (1a) and provides an antecedent to <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> afternoon <strong>in</strong> (1b).<br />
The dependency <strong>in</strong> (2a) is like movement <strong>in</strong> that it can be ei<strong>the</strong>r local (John left before<br />
Mary’s claim) or long-distance (John left before Mary’s claimed time of arrival), and <strong>in</strong><br />
that its long-distance <strong>in</strong>terpretation is blocked by island constra<strong>in</strong>ts (2b). Despite <strong>the</strong>se<br />
similarities, <strong>the</strong>re is currently no consensus on <strong>the</strong> status of temporal dependencies. For<br />
example, it is not agreed whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> process that allows last year to restrict <strong>the</strong> doma<strong>in</strong> of<br />
<strong>the</strong> quantifier every day <strong>in</strong> (1a) is due to movement (von Stechow, 2002) or variable b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
(Pratt and Francez, 2001, henceforth P&F), presupposition accommodation (Onea,<br />
2011) or contextual processes as <strong>in</strong> Recanati (2002). Determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> nature of temporal<br />
dependencies is <strong>the</strong>refore crucial <strong>in</strong> elucidat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> role of context <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation.<br />
The Pratt&Francez/von Stechow debate. P&F analyze temporal dependencies<br />
between adjuncts semantically. Technically, <strong>the</strong>y add an extra temporal argument λI to<br />
<strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g of nouns, as <strong>in</strong> (3a), and transfer this up <strong>the</strong> tree by some ad hoc rules<br />
result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> contextualized constituent mean<strong>in</strong>gs as <strong>in</strong> (3b)-(3d).<br />
(3) a. [day] = λIλx[day(x) ∧ τ(x) ⊆ I]<br />
b. [every day] = λP λI∀x[day(x) ∧ τ(x) ⊆ I → P (x)]<br />
c. [it ra<strong>in</strong>s every day] = λI∀x[day(x) ∧ τ(x) ⊆ I → it-ra<strong>in</strong>s(τ(x))]<br />
d. [(1a)] = λI∀y[year(y)∧τ(y) ⊆ I → ∀x[day(x)∧τ(x) ⊆ τ(y) → it-ra<strong>in</strong>s(τ(x))]]<br />
This solution is criticized by Stechow as “too local” because it does not allow for long<br />
distance dependencies as <strong>in</strong> (2a). Stechow favors a syntactic approach, where only one<br />
temporal adjunct attaches to <strong>the</strong> VP, and where <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs are embedded <strong>in</strong> it and undergo<br />
quantifier rais<strong>in</strong>g at LF. For example, Stechow’s LF of (1a) would be this:<br />
(4) [Last year] λi [every day (with<strong>in</strong>) ti] λj [it ra<strong>in</strong>ed (on) tj].<br />
This proposal. I argue that nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> semantic account of P&F nor <strong>the</strong> movementbased<br />
approach of Stechow captures <strong>the</strong> whole picture, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>re is a previously unnoticed<br />
dichotomy with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> field of temporal dependencies: Attitude-verb dependencies,<br />
like (2a), are subject to syntactic movement constra<strong>in</strong>ts and should <strong>the</strong>refore be handled<br />
by a Stechow-style movement-based account. By contrast, dependencies between<br />
adjuncts, like (1a), systematically violate constra<strong>in</strong>ts on syntactic movement, as shown<br />
by <strong>the</strong> novel data below <strong>in</strong> (5) and (6). Specifically, <strong>the</strong>y can span because-clauses (5a),<br />
relative clauses (5b), if -clauses (5c), sentential subjects (5d), etc. Moreover, <strong>the</strong>y show<br />
<strong>the</strong> same range of <strong>in</strong>terpretations as pronouns and implicit variables: donkey read<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
(6a), quantificational (6b) and modal subord<strong>in</strong>ation (6c).
(5) a. Every year, John got anxious because he needed to file taxes <strong>in</strong> April.<br />
b. Every year, some guy who needs to file taxes <strong>in</strong> April gets anxious <strong>in</strong> March.<br />
c. Last year, I wonder if John went to France <strong>in</strong> August or <strong>in</strong> September.<br />
d. On most days, that it ra<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> afternoon is a good possibility.<br />
(6) a. Whenever John spends a week <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Alps, he hikes every day.<br />
b. Every year, John spends a week <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Alps. Some years, he hikes every day.<br />
c. John might spend <strong>the</strong> next summer <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Alps. He would hike every day.<br />
Formal implementation. The parallel between temporal adjunct dependencies and<br />
anaphora has not been previously noticed and can shed new light on exist<strong>in</strong>g formal accounts<br />
of anaphoric dependencies. Follow<strong>in</strong>g Partee (1989), it is common to avoid mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
a pr<strong>in</strong>cipled dist<strong>in</strong>ction between implicit dependencies and overt phenomena such as pronouns.<br />
We can <strong>the</strong>refore take several routes <strong>in</strong> model<strong>in</strong>g temporal adjunct dependencies.<br />
The textbook account of pronoun b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g (Heim and Kratzer, 1998) requires quantificational<br />
antecedents to move (possibly str<strong>in</strong>g-vacuously) – o<strong>the</strong>rwise <strong>the</strong>y cannot create<br />
an <strong>in</strong>dex, which <strong>in</strong> that system is required for b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g a pronoun. This movement appears<br />
unmotivated <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of adjunct dependencies. I will present and discuss two<br />
syste<strong>ms</strong> which allow b<strong>in</strong>ders to rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> situ: dynamic semantics and variable-free semantics<br />
(VFS). Each of <strong>the</strong>se syste<strong>ms</strong> has been successfully applied to implicit arguments<br />
(Condoravdi and Gawron, 1996; Pedersen, 2011). VFS is especially appeal<strong>in</strong>g because it<br />
allows us to free P&F of its drawbacks. It represents anaphoric dependencies as additional<br />
lambda slots, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> same way as P&F represent temporal dependencies. For example,<br />
<strong>the</strong> λx <strong>in</strong> (7) is directly comparable to <strong>the</strong> λI <strong>in</strong> (3a)-(3d). Through its g (Geach) rule,<br />
VFS provides a pr<strong>in</strong>cipled way of pass<strong>in</strong>g up <strong>the</strong>se slots, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g at long distances if<br />
necessary. We <strong>the</strong>refore no longer need to rely on <strong>the</strong> ad hoc rules <strong>in</strong> P&F.<br />
(7) a. [him] = λx.x b. [Mary loves him] = λx[love(mary, x)]<br />
References<br />
Condoravdi, C. and Gawron, J. M. (1996). The context-dependency of implicit arguments.<br />
In Kanazawa, M., Piñón, C., and de Swart, H., editors, Quantifiers, deduction and<br />
context, pages 1–32. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.<br />
Heim, I. and Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics <strong>in</strong> <strong>Generative</strong> Grammar. Blackwell Publish<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
Oxford, UK.<br />
Onea, E. (2011). On temporal quantification. In Reich, I., Horch, E., and Pauly, D.,<br />
editors, Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of S<strong>in</strong>n und Bedeutung 15, pages 451–465. Universaar – Saarland<br />
University Press.<br />
Partee, B. H. (1989). B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g implicit variables <strong>in</strong> quantified contexts. In Wiltshire,<br />
C., Music, B., and Graczyk, R., editors, Papers from CLS 25, pages 342–356. Chicago<br />
<strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> Society, Chicago, IL.<br />
Pedersen, W. A. (2011). Implicit arguments, paychecks and variable-free semantics. In<br />
Ashton, N., Chereches, A., and Lutz, D., editors, Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of SALT 21, pages 155–<br />
175. Rutgers University.<br />
Pratt, I. and Francez, N. (2001). Temporal prepositions and temporal generalized quantifiers.<br />
<strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> and Philosophy, 24(2):187–255.<br />
Recanati, F. (2002). Unarticulated constituents. <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> and Philosophy, 25:299–345.<br />
von Stechow, A. (2002). Temporal prepositional phrases with quantifiers: Some additions<br />
to Pratt and Francez (2001). <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> and Philosophy, 25:755–800.
Hsu-Te Cheng (UConn)<br />
Ellipsis: its Correlates with Phase and Movement<br />
Synopsis The aim of <strong>the</strong> paper is to argue for two generalizations regard<strong>in</strong>g ellipsis: (1) Phases cannot be<br />
elided. (2) The Movement Ellipsis Generalization (MEG): For a certa<strong>in</strong>ly category XP, if XP can be<br />
elided, it cannot be moved and vice versa. It will be argued that <strong>the</strong>se two generalizations can capture a<br />
wider range of data regard<strong>in</strong>g Argument Ellipsis (AE), and provide some <strong>in</strong>sight on how to detect phases.<br />
Introduction It is well known that languages differ <strong>in</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y allow free occurrence of null<br />
arguments (Huang (1984)). One special type of null arguments, AE, where arguments, but not adjuncts,<br />
may be elided (cf. Oku (1998), Saito (2007), Takahashi (2008), among o<strong>the</strong>rs), has received close<br />
<strong>in</strong>spections recently. Japanese, for example, allows objects and subjects to be elided, as evidenced by <strong>the</strong><br />
availability of <strong>the</strong> sloppy read<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> (1)-(4), irrespective of <strong>the</strong>ir categories (DP, PP, CP, etc). AE,<br />
however, is fairly constra<strong>in</strong>ed. Cheng (2011) argues that <strong>the</strong> paradigm and <strong>the</strong> distribution of AE may be<br />
represented <strong>in</strong> (5). Only languages listed <strong>in</strong> (5a), but not those <strong>in</strong> (5b), are claimed to allow AE.<br />
(1) Taroo-ga [NP zibun-no hahaoya-o ] sonkeisiteiru Ziroo-mo [NP e ] sonkeisiteiru<br />
Taroo-nom self-gen mo<strong>the</strong>r-acc respect Ziroo-also respect<br />
‘Taroo respects his own mo<strong>the</strong>r. ‘Ziroo also respects e.’( OK strict, OK sloppy)<br />
(2) a. Taroo-wa [NP zibun-no teian-ga ] Hanako-o odorokasu to omotteiru<br />
Taroo-top self-gen proposal-nom Hanako-acc surprise that th<strong>in</strong>k<br />
‘Taroo th<strong>in</strong>ks that his proposal will surprise Hanako.’ (Takahashi (2008), p.404)<br />
b. Ken-wa [NP e ] Yumiko-o odorokasu to omotteiru ( OK strict, OK sloppy)<br />
Ken-top Yumiko-o surprise that th<strong>in</strong>k ‘lit. Ken th<strong>in</strong>ks that e will surprise Yumiko.’<br />
(3) a. Taroo to Hanako-ga [PP otagai kara ] meeru-o uketotta<br />
Taroo and Hanako-nom each.o<strong>the</strong>r from e-mail-acc received<br />
‘Taroo and Hanako received e-mail from each o<strong>the</strong>r.’<br />
b. Ken to Yumiko-wa [PP e ] tegami-o uketotta<br />
Ken and Yumiko-top letter-acc received ‘Ken and Yumiko received letters.’<br />
(4) a. Taroo-wa [CP zibun-no teian-ga Hanako-o odorokasu to] omotteiru<br />
Taroo-top self-gen proposal-nom Hanako-acc surprise that th<strong>in</strong>k<br />
‘Taroo th<strong>in</strong>ks that his proposal will surprise Hanako.’<br />
b. Ziroo-mo [CP e ] omotteiru<br />
Ziroo-also th<strong>in</strong>k ‘Ziroo also th<strong>in</strong>ks (that his proposal will surprise Hanako).’<br />
(5) a. Languages that allow AE (and sloppy <strong>in</strong>terpretation): Japanese Korean Ch<strong>in</strong>ese, Turkish…<br />
b. Languages that DO NOT allow AE (and sloppy <strong>in</strong>terpretation): English, French, German, Dutch…<br />
The Proposal I propose that <strong>the</strong>re is a general ban on ellipsis that phases cannot be elided, as <strong>in</strong> (6).<br />
English provides supports for this generalization. Arguments <strong>in</strong> English have been argued to be DPs (cf.<br />
Abney (1987)), and it has been argued that DPs are phases (Svenonius (2004), among o<strong>the</strong>rs). Therefore,<br />
it is <strong>the</strong>n expected that AE is not available <strong>in</strong> English, given (6), s<strong>in</strong>ce arguments are phases (DPs) <strong>in</strong><br />
English, as <strong>in</strong> (7). Moreover, it has been argued that vPs and CPs are strong phases <strong>in</strong> English. (8b) shows<br />
that CPs cannot be elided, conform<strong>in</strong>g with (6). As for vP ellipsis, Merchant (2008) argues that it is really<br />
VP ellipsis, based on <strong>the</strong> facts <strong>in</strong> (9) that ellipsis tolerates voice mismatches. Under <strong>the</strong> assumption that<br />
voice is hosted <strong>in</strong> v, it follows that what is elided is VP, not vP, conform<strong>in</strong>g with (6). For Japanese and<br />
Ch<strong>in</strong>ese, it has been argued that DP is miss<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se languages (Bošković (2008)). The existence of AE<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se languages <strong>the</strong>n follows, given that NP is not a phase (Despić (2011)) and thus can be elided.<br />
(6) The Non-Elidability Condition of Phases: If XP is a phase, XP cannot be elided <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> PF component.<br />
(7) a. *John likes his mo<strong>the</strong>r, and Bill also likes [DP e ].<br />
b. *John th<strong>in</strong>ks that his son is smart. Bill also th<strong>in</strong>ks that [DP e ] is smart.<br />
(8) a. John suspects [CP whe<strong>the</strong>r Mary will pass <strong>the</strong> exam]. b. *Bill also suspects [CP e ].<br />
(9) a. This problem was to have been looked <strong>in</strong>to, but obviously nobody did [VP e ].<br />
b. Actually, I have implemented it with a manager, but it doesn’t have to be [VP e ].<br />
Analysis Hav<strong>in</strong>g substantiated <strong>the</strong> validity of (6), I argue that it may be derived from o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>dependently<br />
motivated assumptions about phases and Spell-Out. I adopt <strong>the</strong> three commonly assumed proposals <strong>in</strong><br />
(10a-c) plus <strong>the</strong> condition <strong>in</strong> (10d). Given <strong>the</strong>se assumptions, <strong>the</strong> ban <strong>in</strong> (6) may be derived. As shown <strong>in</strong>
(11a), when <strong>the</strong> sentence is built to a phase (e.g. vP), <strong>the</strong> complement (VP) will be sent to Spell-Out. The<br />
PF component can choose whe<strong>the</strong>r to realize it properly (with full phonological realization) or not, as <strong>in</strong><br />
(11b). Later, when <strong>the</strong> structure is built to <strong>the</strong> next higher phase, as <strong>in</strong> (11c), <strong>the</strong> shaded element <strong>in</strong> (11c),<br />
namely v to IP, will be sent to Spell-Out, given <strong>the</strong> cyclic (phase-by-phase) nature of Spell-Out. The<br />
whole result will be ei<strong>the</strong>r sluic<strong>in</strong>g, if <strong>the</strong>se elements are spelled out as null, as <strong>in</strong> (11d), or VP ellipsis, if<br />
<strong>the</strong>y are properly realized, as <strong>in</strong> (11e). The condition <strong>in</strong> (6) is thus derived. The complement and <strong>the</strong> edge<br />
of <strong>the</strong> phase are always <strong>in</strong> two different spell<strong>in</strong>g out cycles. The only way to elide <strong>the</strong> whole phase is, <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> second Spell-Out, to realize <strong>the</strong> edge of <strong>the</strong> phase as null but to assign <strong>the</strong> rest of <strong>the</strong> spell<strong>in</strong>g out cycle<br />
proper realization. This option, however, is impossible, given that PF cannot handle elements with<br />
<strong>in</strong>consistent phonological features <strong>in</strong> one spell<strong>in</strong>g out cycle, as <strong>in</strong> (10d). In o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>in</strong> (11c) PF<br />
cannot realize v and vP as null but realize I and IP properly. The ban on elid<strong>in</strong>g phases is thus derived.<br />
One consequence of this condition is that <strong>the</strong> category that may be elided is restricted to complements of<br />
phase heads, given that only <strong>the</strong> complement of phase head HP may be sent to Spell-Out, as <strong>in</strong> (12).<br />
(10) a. Derivations proceed successive cyclically and cycle is def<strong>in</strong>ed by phase (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky (2000, 2001)).<br />
b. Transfer: In phase P with head HP, Transfer applies to <strong>the</strong> complement doma<strong>in</strong> of HP as<br />
soon as <strong>the</strong> edge of P is extended. (Hiraiwa (2003))<br />
c. At each Spell-Out cyle, <strong>the</strong> PF component must decide whe<strong>the</strong>r to spell out <strong>the</strong> elements properly<br />
or not (with null/zero phonological realization). (cf. Holmberg (2001))<br />
d. PF Uniformity: In each cycle, PF can only handle elements with consistent phonological features.<br />
(11) a. [vP [ v [VP eat a cake ]]] b. [vP [ v [VP Δ ] ]] c. [CP C [IP I [vP v [VP ] ] ] ]<br />
� sent to Spell-Out � VP realized as null � sent to Spell-Out<br />
d. [CP C [IP Δ ] ] � sluic<strong>in</strong>g (IP-ellipsis) e. [CP C [IP I [vP v [VP Δ ] ] ] ] � VP ellipsis<br />
(12) a. [Phase H [ …… [Phase Specifier H [XP complement] ]]]<br />
|_____Spell-Out______| |__Spell-Out__|<br />
The Movement Ellipsis Generalization (MEG) MEG, as <strong>in</strong> (13), can <strong>the</strong>n be derived from <strong>the</strong> condition<br />
<strong>in</strong> (6). For a phrase to undergo ellipsis, it must be <strong>the</strong> complement of phase heads, which has been argued<br />
to be immobile, given <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terplay of PIC and Anti-Locality (cf. Abels (2003) and o<strong>the</strong>rs), as <strong>in</strong> (14). On<br />
<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, for a phrase to undergo movement, it must NOT be <strong>the</strong> complement of phase heads so that<br />
movement will not be blocked by PIC and Anti-Locality. However, not be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> complement of phase<br />
will <strong>in</strong> turn exclude it to be eligible for ellipsis. MEG thus predicts that movement and ellipsis are<br />
mutually-exclusive for a given phrase, and this is empirically substantiated. (15-17) show that MEG holds<br />
for CP, DP, and IP. For VP, while it may be elided (18a), it cannot be moved (18b), evidence com<strong>in</strong>g<br />
from Huang’s (1993) b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g examples show<strong>in</strong>g what’s fronted is vP, which conta<strong>in</strong>s <strong>the</strong> subject trace.<br />
(13) MEG: For a certa<strong>in</strong>ly category XP, if XP can be elided, it cannot be moved and vice versa.<br />
(14) a. [Phase Spec [ HP XP ] ] b. [Phase Spec [ H XP ] ]<br />
(banned by Anti-Locality) (banned by PIC)<br />
(15) a. [CP that John will marry a supermodel]1, I will never believe t1 .<br />
b. *John believes that Mary is smart, and Bill also believes [CP e ].<br />
(16) a. [DP Banana]1, John really likes t1 . b. *John likes this book, but Bill does not like [DP e ].<br />
(17) a. *[IP Sam likes Sue]1, Joe doesn’t believe that t1 . b. Joe saw someone, but I don’t know who [IP e ].<br />
(18) a. Sam will come, but Sue will not [VP e ]. b. Sami said that [wash hi<strong>ms</strong>elf*i/j] Joej certa<strong>in</strong>ly would tvP.<br />
Discussion I fur<strong>the</strong>r argue that <strong>the</strong> existence of scrambl<strong>in</strong>g and AE <strong>in</strong> Japanese does not pose a problem<br />
to MEG. Follow<strong>in</strong>g Ohtaki (2011), I will argue that what is elided is not a full DP/NP <strong>in</strong> Japanese, but a<br />
sub-part of it, licensed by (null) KP, a phase. I will argue that <strong>the</strong> same holds for Mandar<strong>in</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese as<br />
well. MEG thus provides us a tool to detect what a phase is, which may be moved but not elided.<br />
Selected References Abels, K. (2003). Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition strand<strong>in</strong>g. UConn<br />
dissertation. Abney, S. (1987). The English noun phrase <strong>in</strong> its sentential aspect. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.<br />
Bošković, Ž. (2008). What will you have, DP or NP? In Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong> 37 th North NELS. Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky, N. (2000).<br />
M<strong>in</strong>imalist Inquires. In Step by step, 89-155. Huang, J. (1984). On <strong>the</strong> distribution and reference of empty<br />
pronouns. LI 15: 531-574. Oku, S. (1998). A <strong>the</strong>ory of selection and reconstruction <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> m<strong>in</strong>imalist perspective.<br />
Doctoral Dissertation, UConn. Saito, M. (2007). Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research 43:<br />
203-227. Takahashi, D. (2008). Noun Phrase Ellipsis. In The Oxford Handbook of Japanese <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong>, 394-422.
Sofiana Chiriacescu (Stuttgart)<br />
Focus<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite noun phrases <strong>in</strong> German and English: consequences of reference<br />
form on <strong>the</strong> subsequent discourse.<br />
One of <strong>the</strong> fundamental questions underly<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ories of language production concerns<br />
referent-track<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g what referents are preferred to be picked up <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> subsequent<br />
discourse and what types of referr<strong>in</strong>g expressions are used for this purpose. A body of<br />
l<strong>in</strong>guistic and psychol<strong>in</strong>guistic studies found out that several factors and criteria <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>the</strong><br />
frequency of re-mention of referents, such as prom<strong>in</strong>ent syntactic positions (e.g. subjects,<br />
focus of clefts) and different <strong>the</strong>matic roles (e.g. Stimulus role <strong>in</strong> a transitive event with<br />
Stimulus and Experiencer roles). Given <strong>the</strong>ir high accessibility or prom<strong>in</strong>ence <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of<br />
syntactic and semantic factors, <strong>the</strong>se referents are fur<strong>the</strong>rmore likely to be picked up <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g discourse by means of a more reduced type of referr<strong>in</strong>g expression (typically a<br />
pronoun) compared to <strong>the</strong>ir less-prom<strong>in</strong>ent counterparts (Ariel 2001, Grosz, Joshi and<br />
We<strong>in</strong>ste<strong>in</strong> 1995). In this paper, we focus on referents mentioned <strong>in</strong> non-prom<strong>in</strong>ent positions<br />
<strong>in</strong> English and German, i.e. as direct objects realized as <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite noun phrases, and argue<br />
that <strong>the</strong>y differ <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of frequency of subsequent mention and likelihood of<br />
pronom<strong>in</strong>alization. The results are discussed <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of how different types of <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite<br />
noun phrases affect <strong>the</strong> discourse structur<strong>in</strong>g potential of <strong>the</strong>ir referents dur<strong>in</strong>g reference<br />
production.<br />
Study1: The English data (Indef<strong>in</strong>ite-this vs. <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite-a)<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to several studies (Pr<strong>in</strong>ce 1981, Ion<strong>in</strong> 2006), English this can be used as an<br />
<strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite determ<strong>in</strong>er alongside <strong>the</strong> simple <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite article a(n). The Experiment (Exp1)<br />
<strong>in</strong>vestigates whe<strong>the</strong>r referents <strong>in</strong>troduced by this and a(n) differ <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of likelihood of<br />
subsequent mention and likelihood pronom<strong>in</strong>alization. Design. We used a sentencecont<strong>in</strong>uation<br />
task with no pronoun-prompt. Participants (n=20) read story fragments (e.g. (1))<br />
and were asked to add five logical and natural-sound<strong>in</strong>g sentence cont<strong>in</strong>uations to each of <strong>the</strong><br />
stories. All critical referents were constructed <strong>in</strong> direct object position and were realized as<br />
<strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite noun phrases. We only manipulated <strong>the</strong> morphological realization of <strong>the</strong> direct<br />
objects (2 conditions: this-condition and a(n)-condition). Note that <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite this occurs<br />
ma<strong>in</strong>ly <strong>in</strong> conversational English, thus, <strong>the</strong> test ite<strong>ms</strong> were kept <strong>in</strong> a colloquial tone.<br />
(1) Sample experimental item from Exp1<br />
this-condition a(n)-condition<br />
Yesterday even<strong>in</strong>g was so warm that Yesterday even<strong>in</strong>g was so warm that James<br />
James decided to hang out with friends decided to hang out with friends at <strong>the</strong> local<br />
at <strong>the</strong> local coffee shop. On his way coffee shop. On his way downtown, he saw<br />
downtown, he saw this kid com<strong>in</strong>g down<br />
<strong>the</strong> street.<br />
a kid com<strong>in</strong>g down <strong>the</strong> street.<br />
Each target item conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong>dividual references to two characters. In (1), for example, <strong>the</strong><br />
first referent (James) is <strong>the</strong> clearly established topic constituent of <strong>the</strong> story fragment, as it is<br />
mentioned twice (with a proper name and pronoun) <strong>in</strong> grammatical subject position. The<br />
critical item <strong>in</strong> (1), this kid, is <strong>in</strong>troduced as an <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite noun phrase <strong>in</strong> direct object position<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> last clause of <strong>the</strong> story fragment. In light of previous studies on <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite-this<br />
(Gernsbacher & Shroyer 1989), we predict that this-referents will be: (i) more frequently<br />
picked up and (ii) more likely to be mentioned with a pronoun <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> subsequent discourse,<br />
compared to a-referents. Results. The first part of our prediction was confirmed, as thisreferents<br />
were picked up <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> subsequent discourse more often than a-referents (<strong>in</strong> 85% vs.<br />
15% of <strong>the</strong> cases). The second part of our prediction was not confirmed, as <strong>the</strong> anaphoric
expressions used for both <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite types were def<strong>in</strong>ite noun phrases (Fig1).<br />
Fig. 1. Type of referr<strong>in</strong>g expression used for <strong>the</strong> first re-mention of <strong>the</strong> referents <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> this-condition and a(n)-condition<br />
Study2: The German data (Indef<strong>in</strong>ite-so’n vs. <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite-e<strong>in</strong>)<br />
The German determ<strong>in</strong>er so’n can be used <strong>in</strong> a similar way as English <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite this (von<br />
Heus<strong>in</strong>ger 2011). Experiment 2 (Exp2) had <strong>the</strong> same design, but tested <strong>the</strong> discourse behavior<br />
of <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>te-so’n compared to that of <strong>the</strong> simple <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite headed by e<strong>in</strong>(e) (‘a(n)’). Aga<strong>in</strong>,<br />
we manipulated only <strong>the</strong> type of <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite noun phrase, which resulted <strong>in</strong> 2 conditions: so’ncondition<br />
and e<strong>in</strong>(e)-condition, as <strong>in</strong> (2). Our prediction is, that if <strong>the</strong> accessibility of so’nreferents<br />
is comparable to that of referents preceded by <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite-this, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong><br />
two experiments should be similar. Results: Similar to <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs of Exp 1, so’n-referents<br />
were picked up more often <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ensu<strong>in</strong>g discourse than <strong>the</strong> e<strong>in</strong>(e)-referents (<strong>in</strong> 80% vs. 17%<br />
of <strong>the</strong> cases), but did not show a preference for pronom<strong>in</strong>alization (Fig.2).<br />
Fig. 2. Type of referr<strong>in</strong>g expression used for <strong>the</strong> first re-mention of <strong>the</strong> referents <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> so’n-condition and e<strong>in</strong>(e)-condition<br />
Conclusions: First, both <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite this and <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite so’n signal <strong>the</strong> likelihood of subsequent<br />
mention of <strong>the</strong>ir referents. Second, <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs of both Exp1 and Exp2 underl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong><br />
necessity to dissociate between likelihood of subsequent mention and likelihood of<br />
pronom<strong>in</strong>alization (confirmation of recent studies on language production, e.g. Kehler, Kertz,<br />
Rohde & Elman 2008), as <strong>the</strong>y do not po<strong>in</strong>t to <strong>the</strong> same type of accessibility of a referent.<br />
Third, we argue that <strong>the</strong> different markers of <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite noun phrases (i.e. this <strong>in</strong> English and<br />
so’n <strong>in</strong> German) were developed to dist<strong>in</strong>guish between accessible and non-accessible<br />
referents when realized as direct objects, as such referents are better competitors for <strong>the</strong><br />
subject referents, at least <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of likelihood of subsequent mention.<br />
References:<br />
*Ariel, M.: Accessibility <strong>the</strong>ory: An overview. In Ted J.M. Sanders, Joost Schilperoord & Wilbert Spooren<br />
(eds.), Text representation: L<strong>in</strong>guistic and psychol<strong>in</strong>guistic aspects, 29–87. A<strong>ms</strong>terdam: John Benjam<strong>in</strong>s (2001).<br />
*Gernsbacher, M & Shroyer, A.: The cataphoric use of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite this <strong>in</strong> spoken narratives. Memory &<br />
Cognition 1989, 17 (5), 536-540. *Grosz, A. Joshi, A. & We<strong>in</strong>ste<strong>in</strong>, S.: Center<strong>in</strong>g: a framework for modell<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> local coherence of discourse. Computational <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> 21: 203 - 225 (1995). *Ion<strong>in</strong>, T.: This is def<strong>in</strong>itely<br />
specific: specificity and def<strong>in</strong>iteness <strong>in</strong> article syste<strong>ms</strong>. Natural Language Semantics. Spr<strong>in</strong>ger. 14. 175-234<br />
(2006). *von Hes<strong>in</strong>ger, K.: Specificity, referentiality and discourse prom<strong>in</strong>ence: German <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite<br />
demonstratives. In Reich, Ingo et al. (eds.), Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of S<strong>in</strong>n & Bedeutung 15, Saarland University Press:<br />
Saarbrücken, Germany (2011). *Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. L.: Coherence and coreference<br />
revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25, 1–44 (2008).
Kaily Clackson (Essex), Vera Heyer (Potsdam) & Harald Clahsen (Potsdam)<br />
Onl<strong>in</strong>e application of B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g Pr<strong>in</strong>ciples A and B:<br />
Evidence from eye movements dur<strong>in</strong>g listen<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Previous experiments exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> time course of <strong>the</strong> application of b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g constra<strong>in</strong>ts<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g onl<strong>in</strong>e process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> adults have yielded mixed results. Early cross-modal prim<strong>in</strong>g<br />
experiments suggested that only grammatically accessible antecedents were considered as<br />
potential antecedents for a pronoun or reflexive, lead<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> proposal that b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ciples act as an ‘<strong>in</strong>itial filter’, restrict<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> search for an antecedent to syntactically<br />
appropriate positions (Nicol & Sw<strong>in</strong>ney 1989). More recent studies have shown that o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
sources of <strong>in</strong>formation such as gender, discourse salience and recency also contribute to<br />
determ<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> referent, although <strong>the</strong> question of whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>se factors operate <strong>in</strong> parallel<br />
with syntactic constra<strong>in</strong>ts or somewhat later is still controversial (see e.g. Badecker and<br />
Straub 2002, Sturt, 2003).<br />
To <strong>in</strong>vestigate <strong>the</strong> moment-to-moment process<strong>in</strong>g of reflexives and pronouns, <strong>the</strong> present<br />
study employed <strong>the</strong> visual world paradigm, monitor<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> eye-movements of 42 adult native<br />
speakers to ‘task-relevant visual contexts’ (Trueswell, 2008: 145) while <strong>the</strong>y listened to<br />
stories such as (1) and (2).<br />
(1) Reflexives<br />
Peter/Susan was wait<strong>in</strong>g outside <strong>the</strong> corner shop. He/She watched as Mr Jones<br />
bought a large box of popcorn for hi<strong>ms</strong>elf over <strong>the</strong> counter.<br />
(2) Pronouns<br />
Peter/Susan was wait<strong>in</strong>g outside <strong>the</strong> corner shop. He/She watched as Mr Jones<br />
bought a large box of popcorn for him/her over <strong>the</strong> counter.<br />
Each story <strong>in</strong>volved two characters and an object (e.g. popcorn <strong>in</strong> (1)). One character was<br />
structurally accessible as an antecedent for <strong>the</strong> reflexive/pronoun (e.g., Mr. Jones <strong>in</strong> (1)),<br />
and one character was structurally <strong>in</strong>accessible (e.g., Peter/Susan <strong>in</strong> (1)). The gender of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent ei<strong>the</strong>r matched or mismatched <strong>the</strong> gender of <strong>the</strong> reflexive/pronoun.<br />
Participants first saw a picture of <strong>the</strong> object, <strong>the</strong>n were asked to listen to <strong>the</strong> story, <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
as quickly as possible ‘who is it for?’ by press<strong>in</strong>g a button correspond<strong>in</strong>g to one of 4 pictures:<br />
<strong>the</strong> two characters mentioned, <strong>the</strong> object, and a distracter character (whose gender did not<br />
match <strong>the</strong> reflexive/pronoun). A video camera record<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> participant’s face provided an<br />
onl<strong>in</strong>e measure of gaze direction at <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t of <strong>the</strong> pronoun/reflexive, and button presses<br />
provided onl<strong>in</strong>e reaction times and accuracy scores reflect<strong>in</strong>g participants’ f<strong>in</strong>al offl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation of <strong>the</strong> pronoun/reflexive.<br />
Offl<strong>in</strong>e accuracy scores showed that for reflexive sentences <strong>the</strong> experimental manipulation<br />
had little effect on <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al <strong>in</strong>terpretation (Match: 95%; Mismatch: 98%), but for <strong>the</strong> pronoun<br />
sentences accuracy was significantly lower when <strong>the</strong> gender of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent<br />
matched that of <strong>the</strong> pronoun (Match: 86%; Mismatch: 96%). In Match conditions almost all<br />
erroneous responses selected <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent. In both reflexive and pronoun<br />
sentences, reaction times were significantly slower when <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent<br />
matched <strong>in</strong> gender with <strong>the</strong> pronoun/reflexive (108<strong>ms</strong> difference for reflexive sentences,<br />
243<strong>ms</strong> for pronoun sentences).
For both reflexives and pronouns, gaze direction was affected by <strong>the</strong> gender of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent, with participants’ gaze mov<strong>in</strong>g more quickly away from <strong>the</strong> picture<br />
of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent when it mismatched <strong>in</strong> gender with <strong>the</strong> reflexive/pronoun.<br />
Statistical analysis showed significant 3-way <strong>in</strong>teractions between Time, Antecedent<br />
(accessible/<strong>in</strong>accessible) and Gender of <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent (match/mismatch) from <strong>the</strong><br />
earliest po<strong>in</strong>t at which eye-movements reflect process<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> pronoun/reflexive (200<strong>ms</strong><br />
after <strong>the</strong> onset of <strong>the</strong> reflexive/pronoun).<br />
Results show that although <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al <strong>in</strong>terpretation of a reflexive is constra<strong>in</strong>ed by pr<strong>in</strong>ciple A,<br />
a discourse salient <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent is also considered as a potential referent from<br />
<strong>the</strong> earliest measurable time. In <strong>the</strong> case of pronouns (where <strong>the</strong> structural constra<strong>in</strong>t does<br />
not pick out a particular referent), <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al <strong>in</strong>terpretation is affected by a recently mentioned<br />
gender match<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent, and this competition is also reflected <strong>in</strong> onl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
measures.<br />
Our results provide support for <strong>the</strong> view (e.g., Badecker & Straub, 2002) that from <strong>the</strong><br />
earliest measurable po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> time b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g constra<strong>in</strong>ts work <strong>in</strong> tandem with o<strong>the</strong>r sources of<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation to determ<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> referent for a reflexive or pronoun.<br />
References<br />
Badecker, W., Straub, K. (2002) The process<strong>in</strong>g role of structural constra<strong>in</strong>ts on <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology:<br />
Learn<strong>in</strong>g, Memory and Cognition, 28 748-769<br />
Nicol, J., Sw<strong>in</strong>ney, D. (1989) The role of structure <strong>in</strong> coreference assignment dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
sentence comprehension. Journal of Psychol<strong>in</strong>guistic research, 18 5-19.<br />
Sturt, P. (2003) The time-course of <strong>the</strong> application of b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g constra<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> reference<br />
resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48 542-562.<br />
Trueswell, J. (2008). Us<strong>in</strong>g eye movements as a developmental measure with<strong>in</strong><br />
psychol<strong>in</strong>guistics. Developmental Psychol<strong>in</strong>guistics: On-l<strong>in</strong>e methods <strong>in</strong> children‘s<br />
language process<strong>in</strong>g, 73-96.
����� ����������� �� ��� ������ ��� ������ �������������<br />
� ������������ ��������� ��� ����������� �����<br />
�� ���� ������ � ����� ��� � ��� ��������� ��� ����������� ����� ���� ������������� ���� ������<br />
�� � ����� ����������� �������� �� �������� ������ ����������� ����������� �������� ��<br />
�������� �������� ���� ������ ����� �� �������� �� ������������ �� ���� �� ������� �������<br />
�� � ��� ���� �� ��������� ���� �������� ��������� ��� ���������� ��� ��������� ����������<br />
���������� �� ��� �� ������������ ���� �������� ��������������� ������ ��� ��������� ��<br />
���������� ��� ������� �������� ����� �� �� ��������� ��� �������� �� ���� ��� �����������<br />
�� ��� �������� ���������<br />
��� ���� ���� ���� �������� �� �� ��� �� ������� ��� �� ������������ ������ �����������<br />
���� ��� ��������� �� ��� ��� ��� ������ �� �� ��� ���� ������ �� ��� ����� �� ��� ��� �����<br />
��� ���������� �� ��� ������� � �������� �������� ����� ������ �� ���������� ���� �������<br />
���� ��� ���� ���������� ��� �� ������� �� ����� �� ���� ����� ��� ����������� ������ ����<br />
��� ����� ������� ���� ���� �� ��� ��� �� ���� ���<br />
��� �� ���� ��� ���� ��� ���� ����<br />
�� ���� ��� ��� ������<br />
���� ���� �� ����<br />
��� �� ��� ��� ��� ����� ��� ��� ������<br />
�� ���� ��� ��� ������<br />
�� �� ���� ����<br />
� ������� �� ������� ��� ����� ������� ������� ����� � �������� ������ ��������� �� �����������<br />
������� �������� ���� ��� ����� �������� ������ ��� ��� ����� �������� �� ���� ����� �����������<br />
���� � ����� �τ �������� �� ��� ����� ����� � �������� ���� �τ �� ����������� ����� ���� ��������<br />
��� �������� �� ���� ������ ��� ����� ��� ������ ������ �� � ��������� ��� ���������<br />
������������ ��� ��������� ��� ������ ���� �� ��������� ����������� �������������� �������������<br />
��� ���� ������� �� ���� ���� �������� �� ����������� ����� ���� ���� ������ ����<br />
��� �� [[���i α]] o�g � λx.[[α]] o�gx/i<br />
�������� �������� �����<br />
�� [[���i α]] f�g � {λx.[[α]] f�gx/i } ����� �������� �����<br />
������������ ������������ ������� ���� ���� �� ��� ����� �� � ����� �������� �������� �� ���<br />
������� � ������ �� �� ���� ��������� ������������ �� ����� ������ ������� �� � ������ �����<br />
����� ���������� ���� �� ������������� ������ �� ������ ���� �� ��������� �� ��� ����������<br />
������ ������ ������� ��� � ���� ������� ����������<br />
���<br />
∼<br />
�����<br />
!<br />
����<br />
"<br />
��<br />
Noah Constant (UMass Amherst)<br />
[[!]] f�g �<br />
#<br />
���<br />
�<br />
{���� ��� ��� ������ ���� ��� ��� ������ �}�<br />
{���� ��� ��� ������ ���� ��� ��� ������ �}�<br />
� � �<br />
�<br />
[["]] f�g � {λx.{x ��� ������ x ��� ������ �}}<br />
[[#]] f�g � {g��� ��� ������ g��� ��� ������ �}<br />
� ��� ����� ��<br />
�� ���� ��������� �� ��� �������� ���� ��� ����� ����� �� � �������� ���� ���������� ��<br />
������� �� ��� ��������� ��������� �� ����� �� � ����������� ������� �� ������� ������ ��������<br />
�������� �∼�� �� ���� ��������������� �������������� �� �������� ∼ ��������� �� � ������ φ<br />
���� ���������� ���� ��� ������� �������� �� ������������ �������� �� ���� ��������� �� �<br />
������ �� [[φ]] f ���������� �� ����� ��� ��������� ��� �� ���������� ���������� [[φ]] o ���������<br />
������ ��� ��� ���� ���� ���� ������� ���� ��� ������� ������� � ������� �������� ��� ���������<br />
��������� ���� �� �� �������� ��������� �� ��� ���� ���� ��� � ���� ��� ��������� �� ����������<br />
�
��� ������������ ���� ��� ���� ���� ��������� �������� ������� ��� ��������� ��� ����<br />
����������������� ���������� �� � �������� ��� �������� ���� ��� ��� ����� �� ����� ����� ���<br />
������ �� ����� ������������ �� �������� ������ ����������� �������� �� �������� ��� ���������<br />
������������� ���� ��� ��� ������ �� ���������� �� ������<br />
��� ��������� ��������� �� ��� ����� ����������� ������� �� ���� �� ������� �� ����� ����� ��<br />
���������� �� ���������� ����� ������� ���� ��� ��������� ��� ��� ����� ������� �� ����������<br />
������� ��� �������� �������� �� ��������� ���� ��� ��� ������ �� �������� �������� ������<br />
�������� ��������� ������ ��� ����� ���������� ��� �� ������ �� ���� ��������� �� ���<br />
���� �������� ���� �� ���� �� ������������� ��� ��� ������ �� �� ���� � �������� ���� �������<br />
�������� �� ��� ���������� ����� ��� ����� ��������<br />
��� � $%&& !"#$%'(& )*+*', -.&'/*0<br />
���� ��������� ����� ������<br />
��� ���� ����� ����� ��� ����� ����<br />
������� ����� �<br />
��������� ���� �� ������� ���� � ������� ��� �������� ������ ������ �������� ���� ���<br />
���� ���� ��� ��������� ��� �������� �� ����� �� ������������� �� ��� �������� �������� ������<br />
����� ��������� ������� ������ ����� ����� ��������� ���� ������� �� �������� ����� ����� ��<br />
���������� ��� ����� �� �������� ��� ��� �������� �� ��������� ����������� �� ��� �������<br />
�������� �� ��� ������� ���������� ������� � ��������� �������� ��� � ������� ��������<br />
�� ��������� ������ �� ����������� ��� ����� ����� ��� �������� ��������� �� ��� ��������<br />
�� [[� ���� ��� ����]] o ������� ��� �������� {���� ��� ��� ������ ���� ��� ��� ������ �}� ����<br />
��� ����� ����� [[����� ���� � �� ��� ����]] f ���� �� ���� ��� ������� �������� �� ��� �� ����<br />
������ ��� ���� ������� ���� ��� ���� ����<br />
�������� ����� ����������� ����� ��� ��������� ��� ������� �� ��� ����� ���� ������� �� ��������<br />
� ����� ���� ���� �� ��������� �� ������� ��� ����� �� �������� ����� ���� ���� ����� ��� ���<br />
����� �� ���� ��� ����� ������ �� ��� ������ ��� �������� ����� ����� ��������� ������ �������<br />
�� � ����� �������� ���������� �� ������� ��������� ����� ���� ������� ���� ������ ������ ���<br />
��������� ���� ������� ��� �������� ��� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ������ �� �� ���� ���� ���<br />
����� ������� ���������� ���� ���� �� ������ ������ ���� ���� ��� ����� ����� �� ������� �������<br />
�� ����� �������� ������ �� ������� ����� �������� ��������� ������ ����� �� ���� � ������<br />
����������� ������� ��� ��� ��������� ��� ����� ����� ��������� �� ��� ����������� ���������<br />
��� �� �� ��������<br />
����<br />
���� ���� ���� ����<br />
����� �����<br />
�� ����<br />
�� �����<br />
�� ��������<br />
�� ����� �����<br />
���� ���� ���� ����<br />
�� ����<br />
�<br />
��� � ���� ��� ���������<br />
!!��� �� �������� �� ������<br />
�<br />
�<br />
��� �� �������� �� ������<br />
!!��� � ���� ��� ���������<br />
�������� ���������� � ������� �� ����� �� �������� ������ ��� ���������� ����������� ���<br />
���������� ��� ��������� �� ����� �� ��� ������������ �� �������� ��������� ��� �����������<br />
�������������� ��� �� ����� ����� ��� ��������� �� ����� ����������� ���������� ���<br />
��� ������� ����������� �� ����� �������� �������������� �� ���������� �������� ��� ������<br />
�������� �� ����� ����������� ��������� �� ���������� ������� �� ���������� ������ ������ ��<br />
����������� ���� ����� �� ��� ��� ������ �� ����� ����������� ���� ������ ����� �������<br />
��� ������� ����� �� ����� ������� ��������� ������� ������������ ����� ��� �������������<br />
���������� �� ����� ���� ��� ������� �� ������ �������� �� ����� ����������� ������ ������� ��<br />
������ ����� �� ����������� ���������� ������������ ������������ ��� ������������ �������������<br />
���� �� ����������� �� ����� ������ �� ������<br />
�<br />
�
NPI licens<strong>in</strong>g by exclusives: Just scope could ever expla<strong>in</strong> it<br />
We offer an analysis of <strong>the</strong> NPI licens<strong>in</strong>g properties of a range of exclusives, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g adverbial<br />
and adjectival only, mere, exclusive, and just. Our proposal is that all exclusives license NPIs<br />
with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir semantic scope, and differences <strong>in</strong> behavior arise from differences of scope, which <strong>in</strong><br />
turn derive from differences of semantic type: some exclusives correspond to one application of <strong>the</strong><br />
Geach type-shift<strong>in</strong>g rule to Beaver and Clark’s (2008) lexical entry for only, and o<strong>the</strong>rs correspond<br />
to two.<br />
Data. Despite <strong>the</strong> synonymy between He is only a child and He is a mere child, <strong>the</strong> two exclusives<br />
cannot both license NPIs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> VP of a clause whose subject <strong>the</strong>y modify:<br />
(1) Only a child said anyth<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Elizabeth Coppock (Lund) & David Beaver (U. Texas, Aust<strong>in</strong>)<br />
(2) *A mere child said anyth<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
The adjectival exclusives only and exclusive do not license NPIs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> VP ei<strong>the</strong>r, although <strong>the</strong>y do<br />
license NPIs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir syntactic scope:<br />
(3) a. *The only author got any royalties.<br />
b. The *(only) student who asked any questions got an A.<br />
(4) a. *The exclusive supplier of gas energy got any new contracts.<br />
b. As part of our agreement with your group, <strong>the</strong> Club is <strong>the</strong> *(exclusive) supplier<br />
of any beverage served on our property.<br />
Unlike only and exclusive, mere does not license NPIs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> modified noun phrase ((5)), but it<br />
does license NPIs outside its syntactic scope <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> constructions ((6)):<br />
(5) *He is a mere author of any children’s books<br />
(6) I toiled for decades on a Wiscons<strong>in</strong> campus on which *(a mere) 18 percent of <strong>the</strong> enter<strong>in</strong>g<br />
freshmen [VP ever graduate ].<br />
Just sometimes behaves like mere, and sometimes like only. (7) can be paraphrased as (8).<br />
(7) Just <strong>the</strong> thought of him sends shivers down my sp<strong>in</strong>e.<br />
(8) The mere thought of him sends shivers down my sp<strong>in</strong>e.<br />
On this read<strong>in</strong>g (<strong>the</strong> scalar read<strong>in</strong>g), his touch would send shivers too, if noth<strong>in</strong>g worse. On <strong>the</strong><br />
non-scalar read<strong>in</strong>g, noth<strong>in</strong>g o<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> thought of him, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g his touch, would send <strong>the</strong><br />
shivers. This is <strong>the</strong> most prom<strong>in</strong>ent read<strong>in</strong>g with only:<br />
(9) Only <strong>the</strong> thought of him sends shivers down my sp<strong>in</strong>e.<br />
It is only on <strong>the</strong> non-scalar read<strong>in</strong>g that just licenses NPIs. (10) is acceptable when it means (11),<br />
but not on <strong>the</strong> most prom<strong>in</strong>ent read<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> subject NP (≈ a mere smile from him).<br />
(10) ?Just a smile from him would make any difference.<br />
(11) Only a smile from him would make any difference.
Scalar particles and competition<br />
Synopsis. We provide an account for <strong>the</strong> variation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> distribution of scalar particles that is based<br />
on three assumptions: (i) scalar particles may move at LF (cf. Karttunen & Peters 1979), (ii) some<br />
scalar particles are morphologically complex (cf. Guerzoni 2003, Lahiri 2010), and (iii) scalar<br />
particles form scales and compete for <strong>in</strong>sertion.<br />
1. Cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistic variation. At first sight <strong>the</strong>re appear to be many distributional differences<br />
between scalar particles <strong>in</strong> different languages. However, a more careful exam<strong>in</strong>ation reveals that<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir distribution varies along only two dimensions: <strong>the</strong> pragmatic strength of <strong>the</strong> associate <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
immediate surface scope of <strong>the</strong> scalar particle and, roughly, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> scalar particle can be<br />
characterized as an n-word (cf. Gast & van der Auwera 2011).<br />
1.1. First dimension of variation. Scalar particles can be classified with respect to whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y may<br />
associate with pragmatically weak or strong elements <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir immediate surface scope – we call<br />
<strong>the</strong>se particles weak and strong scalar particles, respectively. With respect to this criterion, <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
three ma<strong>in</strong> groups of scalar particles: (i) scalar particles that may be weak or strong (e.g. even <strong>in</strong><br />
English, même <strong>in</strong> French), (ii) scalar particles that may only be strong (e.g. sogar <strong>in</strong> German, hasta <strong>in</strong><br />
Spanish), and (iii) scalar particles that may only be weak (e.g. so much as <strong>in</strong> English, auch nur,<br />
e<strong>in</strong>mal <strong>in</strong> German). This idiosyncratic distribution is schematized <strong>in</strong> (1), while <strong>the</strong> relevant implicational<br />
generalization is <strong>in</strong> (2).<br />
(1) a. Hans read { even / sogar / *auch nur } SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES<br />
b. If Hans read { even / *sogar / auch nur } ONE book, he passed <strong>the</strong> exam<br />
(2) There is a scalar particle that is only strong <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> language<br />
⇒ There is a scalar particles that is only weak <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> language<br />
1.2. Second dimension of variation. Scalar particles that may only be weak can be split <strong>in</strong>to three<br />
subclasses: (iii.a) scalar particles that may occur both <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> immediate scope of negation and <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
DE environments (so much as <strong>in</strong> English), (iii.b) scalar particles that occur only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> immediate<br />
scope of negation (e.g. e<strong>in</strong>mal <strong>in</strong> German, niti <strong>in</strong> Slovenian), and (iii.c) scalar particles that never<br />
occur <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> immediate scope of negation (e.g. auch nur <strong>in</strong> German, tudi <strong>in</strong> Slovenian). This<br />
distribution is schematized <strong>in</strong> (3), while <strong>the</strong> relevant implicational generalization is <strong>in</strong> (4).<br />
(3) a. Hans didn't read { so much as / e<strong>in</strong>mal / *auch nur } ONE book<br />
b. If Hans read { so much as / *e<strong>in</strong>mal / auch nur } ONE book, he passed <strong>the</strong> exam<br />
(4) There is a scalar particle that may only be weak and only occurs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> immediate scope of<br />
negation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> language ⇒ No o<strong>the</strong>r weak scalar particle that may only be weak occurs <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> immediate scope of negation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> language<br />
2. Derivation. We derive <strong>the</strong> variation described above from two parameters (whe<strong>the</strong>r a particle<br />
spells out one or two scalar components, whe<strong>the</strong>r a particle bears a negative feature) and <strong>in</strong>dependent<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>in</strong> grammar (Maximize Presupposition, Relativized M<strong>in</strong>imality).<br />
2.1. Morphology. All scalar particles share <strong>the</strong> scalar component that requires its sister to denote a<br />
proposition that is less likely than a relevant alternative (Bennett 1982, Kay 1990). We represent this<br />
component with EVEN (5a). There is ano<strong>the</strong>r component to scalar particles, which is however not<br />
shared by all scalar particles: a scalar component that requires its sister to denote a proposition that is<br />
most likely among <strong>the</strong> alternatives (cf. Guerzoni 2003, Lahiri 2010). We represent this component<br />
with NUR (5b). These two components may move at LF (cf. Karttunen & Peters 1979) and <strong>the</strong>y<br />
associate with <strong>the</strong> same focused element (cf. Krifka 1991). F<strong>in</strong>ally, <strong>in</strong> some languages, <strong>the</strong> NUR<br />
component may bear an un<strong>in</strong>terpretable negative feature, mak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> scalar particle comparable to nwords<br />
or n-<strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ites of <strong>the</strong> language.<br />
(5) a. [[ EVEN ]] g,c (C, p, w) is def<strong>in</strong>ed only if ∃q∈C [p < c q].<br />
If def<strong>in</strong>ed, [[ EVEN ]] g,c (C, p, w) = 1 iff p(w) = 1<br />
Luka Crnic (Hebrew University)
. [[ NUR ]] g,c (C, p, w) is def<strong>in</strong>ed only if ∀q∈C [q < c p].<br />
If def<strong>in</strong>ed, [[ NUR ]] g,c (C, p, w) = 1 iff p(w) = 1<br />
In a language like German, sogar spells out (6a), auch nur spells out (6b), while (nicht) e<strong>in</strong>mal spells<br />
out (6c). In English, even is ambiguous between (6a) and (6b), while so much as spells out (6b); <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is no scalar particle <strong>in</strong> English that bears a negative feature.<br />
(6) a. [EVEN] ↔ even; sogar b. [EVEN] [NUR] ↔ even; so much as; auch nur<br />
c. [EVEN] [NUR] [uNEG] ↔ (nicht) e<strong>in</strong>mal<br />
2.2. Expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g distribution. The characterization <strong>in</strong> (6) does not suffice to account for <strong>the</strong> peculiar<br />
restrictions on <strong>the</strong> associates of sogar and auch nur. For example, sogar could occur with a weak<br />
associate where EVEN would move at LF. We block this by assum<strong>in</strong>g that sogar, auch nur and (nicht)<br />
e<strong>in</strong>mal form a scale and compete for <strong>in</strong>sertion (7). The same holds for its k<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r languages.<br />
(7) < [EVEN], [EVEN][NUR], [EVEN][NUR] [uNeg] ><br />
The competition of <strong>the</strong> particles <strong>in</strong> (7) is governed by Maximize Presupposition, which requires one<br />
to use among contextually equivalent alternatives <strong>the</strong> one with stronger presuppositions (Heim 1991).<br />
On <strong>the</strong> one hand, this necessitates sogar to be base-generated adjo<strong>in</strong>ed to clauses denot<strong>in</strong>g strong<br />
propositions: if <strong>the</strong> clause denoted a weak proposition, auch nur would have to be <strong>in</strong>serted s<strong>in</strong>ce this<br />
would lead to stronger presuppositions of <strong>the</strong> sentence (8).<br />
(8) a. ✗ [EVEN C 3] [I doubt [[EVEN C 3] you read one F book]] (spell out: sogar)<br />
b. ✔ [EVEN C 3] [I doubt [[EVEN C 3] [NUR C 0] you read one F book]] (spell out: auch nur)<br />
On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, auch nur may only be adjo<strong>in</strong>ed to clauses denot<strong>in</strong>g weak propositions: if it were<br />
adjo<strong>in</strong>ed to a strong clause, <strong>the</strong>n NUR would ei<strong>the</strong>r trigger an <strong>in</strong>correct presupposition (9b) or it<br />
would have to move above EVEN which is ruled out by Relativized M<strong>in</strong>imality (9c). Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore,<br />
[EVEN][NUR] must be embedded under an appropriate non-upward entail<strong>in</strong>g operator s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> two<br />
scalar components would o<strong>the</strong>rwise trigger clash<strong>in</strong>g presuppositions (cf. Guerzoni 2003).<br />
(9) a. ✔ [I doubt [[EVEN C 3] you read (all) twelve F books]] (spell out: sogar)<br />
b. ✗ [EVEN C 3][I doubt [[EVEN C 3][NUR C 0] you read twelve F books]] (spell out: auch nur)<br />
c. ✗ [NUR C 3][I doubt [[EVEN C 3][NUR C 0] you read twelve F books]] (spell out: auch nur)<br />
[EVEN][NUR] [uNEG] may be spelled out only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> immediate scope of negation where its negative<br />
feature, which has no semantic reflex, can be checked. An Elsewhere Condition <strong>the</strong>n dictates that <strong>in</strong> a<br />
language that has both weak scalar particles, [EVEN][NUR] may not be spelled out <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> immediate<br />
scope of negation but only <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r non-upward-entail<strong>in</strong>g environments. Thus, (nicht) e<strong>in</strong>mal and<br />
auch nur are treated analogously to <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ites nie and je, respectively (e.g. Penka & Zeijlstra 2005).<br />
As expected, <strong>the</strong>y exhibit a parallel distribution, e.g. both <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite je and auch nur may occur<br />
under (covert) negation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> presence of an n-<strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite (10). This is different <strong>in</strong> Slavic languages<br />
where all <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ites and weak scalar particles under clausemate negation must be n-marked.<br />
(10) a. Niemand hat { je, *nie } etwas gegessen<br />
n-<strong>in</strong>def-nobody has { <strong>in</strong>def, *n-<strong>in</strong>def } someth<strong>in</strong>g eaten<br />
b. Ich habe nie { auch nur, *nicht e<strong>in</strong>mal, *e<strong>in</strong>mal } EIN Buch gelesen<br />
I have n-<strong>in</strong>def-never { auch nur, *nicht e<strong>in</strong>mal, *e<strong>in</strong>mal } one book read<br />
3. Conclusion. We have derived <strong>the</strong> five classes of scalar particles – (i)-(iii.c) above – <strong>in</strong> a<br />
framework that, first, allows for movement of EVEN and, second, assumes morphological variation<br />
among scalar particles. We left aside <strong>the</strong> issue of additivity of scalar particles; we propose that this is<br />
derived along <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>es put forward by Rullmann (1997). Ano<strong>the</strong>r issue left aside is <strong>the</strong> noncanonicity<br />
of movement of EVEN. A fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>quiry <strong>in</strong>to this is mandated.<br />
Selected references. Gast, V. & J. van der Auwera (2011) "Scalar additive operators <strong>in</strong> languages of Europe." Guerzoni,<br />
E. (2003) Why even ask? Lahiri, U. (2010) "Some evens are even ifs." Rullmann, H. (1997) "Even, polarity and scope."
Ian Cunn<strong>in</strong>gs & Patrick Sturt (Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh)<br />
The Time-Course of Reference Resolution <strong>in</strong> Picture Noun Phrases:<br />
Evidence from Eye-Movements Dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Read<strong>in</strong>g</strong><br />
Although b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ory (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky, 1981) as orig<strong>in</strong>ally formulated predicts that reflexives<br />
and pronouns should be <strong>in</strong> complementary distribution (e.g. ‘John1 <strong>in</strong>jured hi<strong>ms</strong>elf1/him*1’), a<br />
number of researchers have noted that complementarity breaks down <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> contexts (e.g.<br />
Pollard & Sag, 1992; Re<strong>in</strong>hart & Reuland, 1993). One construction <strong>in</strong> particular where<br />
complementarity appears to break down is <strong>the</strong> picture noun phrase (PNP), as <strong>in</strong> ‘John1 saw a<br />
picture of hi<strong>ms</strong>elf1/him1’, and <strong>the</strong> question of whe<strong>the</strong>r or not possessed picture noun phrases<br />
(PPNPs; e.g. ‘John’s1 picture of hi<strong>ms</strong>elf1/him?1’) should also be exempt from b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
has been <strong>the</strong> subject of some debate (see e.g. Runner et al. 2006).<br />
Psychol<strong>in</strong>guistic research has exam<strong>in</strong>ed to what extent b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g constra<strong>in</strong>ts are violable dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
onl<strong>in</strong>e sentence process<strong>in</strong>g. While it has been argued that, at least for reflexives, b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory applies early to help guide <strong>the</strong> antecedent search for b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ory accessible<br />
antecedents (e.g. ‘John’ <strong>in</strong> ‘Steven knew that John had <strong>in</strong>jured hi<strong>ms</strong>elf’) ra<strong>the</strong>r than<br />
<strong>in</strong>accessible ones (e.g. ‘Steven’; see e.g. Sturt 2003) dur<strong>in</strong>g onl<strong>in</strong>e sentence comprehension, it<br />
has been claimed that <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedents can have early effects on process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> (P)PNP<br />
contexts (Kaiser et al. 2009; Runner et al. 2006).<br />
We exam<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of reflexives and pronouns <strong>in</strong> PNP and PPNP contexts <strong>in</strong> four<br />
eye-track<strong>in</strong>g experiments. In each experiment, 28 different native English speakers read 32<br />
critical and 64 filler texts while <strong>the</strong>ir eye-movements were monitored. Experiments 1 and 2<br />
exam<strong>in</strong>ed reflexives. Critical texts conta<strong>in</strong>ed one accessible and one <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent,<br />
and gender congruence (match vs. mismatch) between each antecedent and <strong>the</strong> reflexive was<br />
manipulated <strong>in</strong> a 2x2 design. Congruence between <strong>the</strong> reflexive and <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent<br />
was manipulated us<strong>in</strong>g proper names (Jonathan/Jennifer), while pre-tested gender stereotypes<br />
were used for <strong>the</strong> accessible antecedent (<strong>the</strong> soldier… hi<strong>ms</strong>elf/herself). PNP and PPNP<br />
contexts were tested <strong>in</strong> Experiments 1 and 2 respectively:<br />
Jonathan/Jennifer was walk<strong>in</strong>g through <strong>the</strong> military barracks. He/she heard...<br />
(1a) ... that <strong>the</strong> soldier had a picture of hi<strong>ms</strong>elf/herself <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> middle of <strong>the</strong> mess hall.<br />
(1b) ... about <strong>the</strong> soldier’s picture of hi<strong>ms</strong>elf/herself <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> middle of <strong>the</strong> mess hall.<br />
Experiments 3 and 4 exam<strong>in</strong>ed pronouns <strong>in</strong> PNP and PPNP contexts. Similar manipulations<br />
between <strong>the</strong> accessible and <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedents and a pronoun were used, except that this<br />
time we avoided use of <strong>the</strong> female pronoun as a result of its temporary ambiguity as a full<br />
noun phrase or specifier (see Clifton et al. 1997):<br />
The medical staff had a meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> office. The surgeon/nurse recalled...<br />
(2a) ... that Jonathan/Jennifer noticed a portrait of him over at <strong>the</strong> back of <strong>the</strong> room.<br />
(2b) ... about Jonathan’s/Jennifer’s portrait of him over at <strong>the</strong> back of <strong>the</strong> room.<br />
The results of Experiments 1 and 2 <strong>in</strong>dicated <strong>the</strong> same relative time-course of antecedent<br />
effects for reflexives <strong>in</strong> both PNP and PPNP contexts. In both experiments, comparatively<br />
earlier read<strong>in</strong>g time measures were longer when <strong>the</strong> accessible antecedent mismatched <strong>the</strong><br />
stereotypical gender of <strong>the</strong> reflexive compared to when <strong>the</strong>re was a gender match, while<br />
effects of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent were <strong>in</strong> comparison delayed. For example, <strong>in</strong> (1b),<br />
stereotypical gender mismatches between <strong>the</strong> reflexive and accessible antecedent <strong>in</strong>curred<br />
longer read<strong>in</strong>g times dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>itial <strong>in</strong>spection of both <strong>the</strong> reflexive and a spillover region<br />
consist<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> two words after <strong>the</strong> reflexive, whereas effects of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent<br />
were only observed <strong>in</strong> second pass times of <strong>the</strong> spillover region. In Experiments 3 and 4, we
observed reliable effects of <strong>the</strong> accessible antecedent only. For example, <strong>in</strong> both experiments,<br />
second pass times of <strong>the</strong> pronoun were found to be reliably longer follow<strong>in</strong>g a stereotypical<br />
gender mismatch between <strong>the</strong> pronoun and accessible antecedent <strong>in</strong> comparison to when <strong>the</strong>re<br />
was a stereotypical gender match.<br />
The results of Experiments 1 and 2 extend previous f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs that b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ory applies early<br />
to help guide <strong>the</strong> resolution of reflexives (Sturt, 2003). Although previous offl<strong>in</strong>e studies have<br />
shown that comprehenders will accept a non-local ‘<strong>in</strong>accessible’ antecedent as a potential<br />
antecedent for a reflexive <strong>in</strong>side a (P)PNP (e.g. Asudeh & Keller, 2001; Runner et al. 2003<br />
Experiment 1), our data suggest that, contra <strong>the</strong> results of Runner et al. (2006) who did not<br />
<strong>in</strong>clude gender (mis)match<strong>in</strong>g control conditions <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir visual world experiments, accessible<br />
antecedents only are <strong>in</strong>itially considered as a potential antecedent for a reflexive dur<strong>in</strong>g earlier<br />
stages of process<strong>in</strong>g dur<strong>in</strong>g read<strong>in</strong>g. The antecedent search for pronouns <strong>in</strong> (P)PNP contexts<br />
appears to be similarly constra<strong>in</strong>ed.<br />
References.<br />
Asudeh, A. & Keller, F. (2001). Experimental evidence for a predication-based b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory. Papers from <strong>the</strong> 37 th meet<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> Chicago L<strong>in</strong>guistic Society, 1-14.<br />
Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g. Dordrecht, Foris.<br />
Clifton, C., Kennison, S., & Albrecht, J. (1997). <strong>Read<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> words her, his, him: Implications<br />
for pars<strong>in</strong>g pr<strong>in</strong>ciples based on frequency and on structure. Journal of Memory and<br />
Language, 36, 276-292.<br />
Kaiser, E., Runner, J., Sussman, R., & Tanenhaus, M. (2009). Structural and semantic<br />
constra<strong>in</strong>ts on <strong>the</strong> resolution of pronouns and reflexives. Cognition, 112, 55-80.<br />
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. (1992). Anaphors <strong>in</strong> English and <strong>the</strong> scope of B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g Theory. L<strong>in</strong>guistic<br />
Inquiry, 23, 261-303.<br />
Runner, J., Sussman, R. & Tanenhaus, M. (2003). Assignment of reference to reflexives and<br />
pronouns <strong>in</strong> picture noun phrases: evidence from eye-movements. Cognition, 2003,<br />
B1-B13.<br />
- (2006). Process<strong>in</strong>g reflexives and pronouns <strong>in</strong> picture noun phrases. Cognitive<br />
Science, 30, 193-241.<br />
Re<strong>in</strong>hart, T. & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. L<strong>in</strong>guistic Inquiry, 24, 657-720.<br />
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of <strong>the</strong> application of b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g constra<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> reference<br />
resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542-562.
Roberta D’Alessandro & Marc van Oostendorp (Leiden)<br />
Cyclic syntax mirrors cyclic phonology. Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Italian Vocatives <strong>in</strong> context.<br />
1. The issue. Vocatives pose a number of proble<strong>ms</strong> for various modules of l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>the</strong>ory. For<br />
syntax, <strong>the</strong>y raise <strong>the</strong> issue where exactly such 'case', as vocative is traditionally def<strong>in</strong>ed, is<br />
supposed to be assigned, given that it does not fit <strong>the</strong> traditional taxonomy of <strong>in</strong>herent vs. structural<br />
case: vocative is nei<strong>the</strong>r l<strong>in</strong>ked to any obvious <strong>the</strong>matic role, nor to any classical case position. Yet,<br />
it displays a dedicated end<strong>in</strong>g (or special phonological form; pace Schaden 2010). Syntactically,<br />
vocatives have been identified with topics (Lambrecht 1969, Portner 2004) or with isolated<br />
elements (Zwicky 2004), and <strong>the</strong>ir function has been classified <strong>in</strong> various ways (Schlegoff 1968,<br />
Zwicky 1974, Portner 2004, Schaden 2010) accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong>ir semantics. None of <strong>the</strong> syntaxsemantics<br />
based analyses, however, offers a solution for <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g phonological puzzle:<br />
vocatives are expressed <strong>in</strong> many languages as truncation patterns (e.g. Yapese, Jensen 1977;<br />
Indonesian, Cohn 2005; Arabic, Russian, Yadroff 1996), even though truncation is o<strong>the</strong>rwise very<br />
marked, while <strong>the</strong>re are no conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>g examples of e.g. Nom<strong>in</strong>ative or Dative be<strong>in</strong>g expressed <strong>in</strong><br />
this way <strong>in</strong> any language. Observe that it has been noted that <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> verbal doma<strong>in</strong>, imperatives<br />
show a very similar behavior to that of vocatives (e.g. <strong>in</strong> Hebrew, Bat-El 2002, and much of <strong>the</strong><br />
work by Zanutt<strong>in</strong>i & Portner on imperatives and exclamatives).<br />
2. Proposal. In this paper, we suggest that <strong>the</strong> syntactic and <strong>the</strong> phonological puzzles should be<br />
solved <strong>in</strong> tandem, as <strong>the</strong>y are two sides of <strong>the</strong> same issue: <strong>the</strong> exocentric phonological behaviour is<br />
a result of <strong>the</strong> peripheral/external syntactic position and of <strong>the</strong> fact that discourse-related features<br />
(which we will <strong>in</strong>clude among <strong>the</strong> edge features) are read by a different phonological cycle than φ-<br />
and case features. Follow<strong>in</strong>g Zanutt<strong>in</strong>i (2008), we claim that vocatives are different from imperative<br />
subjects. Yet, we ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> that <strong>the</strong>y are l<strong>in</strong>ked to an [addressee] position, though be<strong>in</strong>g external to<br />
<strong>the</strong> sp<strong>in</strong>e (much like Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky’s adjuncts). Their position is with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> left periphery of <strong>the</strong> clause,<br />
and it is precisely such position which allows for prosodic exponence (<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sense of <strong>in</strong>tonation).<br />
We argue that truncation is – at least <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> syste<strong>ms</strong> we are study<strong>in</strong>g here - Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Italian dialects<br />
– actually a response to <strong>the</strong> demands of an <strong>in</strong>tonational pattern imposed by <strong>the</strong> [addressee] head.<br />
There is converg<strong>in</strong>g evidence that <strong>the</strong>re are two “submodules” <strong>in</strong> syntax, although authors do not<br />
concur on <strong>the</strong>ir actual implementation: one type is 'core syntax' deal<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>the</strong>matic relations etc.<br />
and correspond<strong>in</strong>g roughly to propositional semantics. The o<strong>the</strong>r is ‘peripheral syntax’, and deals<br />
with 'edge features' (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2000 ff.), i.e. features <strong>in</strong>duc<strong>in</strong>g movement which impacts semantic<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation, and corresponds to discourse semantics (topic-focus structure, question formation,<br />
etc.). The fact that <strong>the</strong>se two types of syntax also roughly correlate with different phonological<br />
implementation is less frequently observed, although it see<strong>ms</strong> quite evident: <strong>in</strong> typical non-tonal<br />
languages, (<strong>in</strong>tonational) tone can be used to mark e.g. questions, or focus, but it is never used to<br />
mark e.g. passive formation or number agreement.<br />
The syntactic split has received several types of formalization. Most prom<strong>in</strong>ently, <strong>the</strong>re have been<br />
those who argue that <strong>the</strong> split is somewhere <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> syntax, so that <strong>the</strong>re are at least two k<strong>in</strong>ds of<br />
syntactic features (φ –and case- features, ma<strong>in</strong>ly active <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> A-doma<strong>in</strong>, and “edge” and discourse<br />
features like Speaker and Addressee, ma<strong>in</strong>ly active <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> left periphery, Speas 2000, 2004;<br />
Sigurðsson 2000, 2001 ff.) correspond<strong>in</strong>g to different semantics (and, we would say, different<br />
phonologies), vs. those who claim that <strong>in</strong>formation structure is only extrasyntactic. We argue that<br />
vocatives shed light on this issue, especially if looked at from a cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistic po<strong>in</strong>t of view. On<br />
<strong>the</strong> one hand, <strong>the</strong>y have many of <strong>the</strong> properties of 'external' syntax, but on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, it is<br />
difficult to l<strong>in</strong>k <strong>the</strong>m precisely to <strong>in</strong>formation structure, and more importantly, <strong>the</strong>y can also be<br />
expressed <strong>in</strong> some languages by non-<strong>in</strong>tonational morphological means (e.g. <strong>the</strong> special case<br />
end<strong>in</strong>gs of Lat<strong>in</strong> for <strong>the</strong> vocative). We claim that this argues for a syntax-phonology implementation<br />
of <strong>the</strong> split.<br />
3. Data. As observed above, truncation has been attested as <strong>the</strong> phonological exponence of <strong>the</strong><br />
vocative for a number of languages. Here we concentrate on <strong>the</strong> case of Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Italian dialects. In<br />
<strong>the</strong>se dialects, a vocative is formed by a prefix (a or o) and a truncated form of <strong>the</strong> DP, which<br />
consists of all <strong>the</strong> phonological material up until and <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> stressed vowel:
(1) a. (A) Mariagiova’! c. (A) Sje’! [Abruzzese]<br />
Mariagiovanna (VOC) Sjef (VOC)<br />
b. (A) Robbe’! d. (A) surelle de lu padre di Giuwa'!<br />
Roberto (VOC) Sister of Giovanni's fa<strong>the</strong>r (VOC)<br />
These examples show that <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al size of <strong>the</strong> DP does not matter: everyth<strong>in</strong>g until <strong>the</strong> stressed<br />
vowel is <strong>in</strong>cluded, and everyth<strong>in</strong>g follow<strong>in</strong>g it (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g coda consonants) is deleted. An analysis<br />
of <strong>the</strong> phenomenon necessarily calls for a syntax-phonology <strong>in</strong>terface analysis.<br />
4. Phonological analysis. Phonologically, <strong>the</strong>re is one major issue to be resolved: <strong>the</strong> ra<strong>the</strong>r curious<br />
shape of <strong>the</strong> truncation. Alber (2010) argues that <strong>the</strong>re are two (OT) Alignment constra<strong>in</strong>ts at work:<br />
one ensur<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> left edge of <strong>the</strong> constituent is preserved, and one mak<strong>in</strong>g sure that <strong>the</strong><br />
truncation ends <strong>in</strong> a stressed vowel. (Yet ano<strong>the</strong>r constra<strong>in</strong>t ensures that everyth<strong>in</strong>g between two<br />
preserved segments is also preserved.) Although this is def<strong>in</strong>itely descriptively adequate, it should<br />
be noted that hav<strong>in</strong>g a constra<strong>in</strong>t align<strong>in</strong>g a stressed vowel with <strong>the</strong> edge of a phrase is somewhat<br />
suspicious for a template. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, phonological accounts so far do not take <strong>in</strong>to account why it<br />
is exactly vocatives that show this behavior. We <strong>the</strong>refore propose a different analysis: <strong>the</strong> exponent<br />
of <strong>the</strong> vocative is (at least) a pitch accent, which is specified for be<strong>in</strong>g at <strong>the</strong> same time a boundary<br />
tone (i.e. H*%). The fact that it is specified as a pitch accent makes it want to be on <strong>the</strong> stressed<br />
syllable; <strong>the</strong> fact that it is a boundary tone makes it want to be at <strong>the</strong> edge of <strong>the</strong> constituent. The<br />
paradox is resolved by mak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> stressed vowel be exactly on <strong>the</strong> edge of <strong>the</strong> constituent – i.e. by<br />
truncation of everyth<strong>in</strong>g follow<strong>in</strong>g it.<br />
5. Syntactic analysis. Although we believe that this phonological account describes <strong>the</strong> truncation<br />
<strong>in</strong> a more elegant way (as well as one which makes more precise predictions about <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tonational<br />
pattern), it does not yet expla<strong>in</strong> why truncation patterns are so typical for vocatives (as well as for<br />
imperatives) and why <strong>the</strong>y do not occur for o<strong>the</strong>r morphological cases or verbal tenses. As a po<strong>in</strong>t<br />
of departure for a formalization of <strong>the</strong> 'two syntaxes' mentioned above, we take Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky's (2000)<br />
dist<strong>in</strong>ction between 'edge features' and 'φ-features', where <strong>the</strong> latter seem typical for '<strong>in</strong>ternal'<br />
syntax, and <strong>the</strong> former for 'external syntax'. We take ‘edge features’ to <strong>in</strong>clude all “semantic” and<br />
discourse-related features (i.e. not only topic-focus or wh, but also Speaker and Addressee). We<br />
propose that <strong>the</strong>se two types of features are derivationally dist<strong>in</strong>ct, and syntax has, as it were, two<br />
<strong>in</strong>dependent cycles: first, one <strong>in</strong> which φ-features operate, and afterwards one <strong>in</strong> which edge<br />
features are operative. Each of <strong>the</strong>se two cycles has its own spell-out: <strong>the</strong> former to segmental<br />
phonology (and propositional semantics), <strong>the</strong> second to <strong>in</strong>tonational and o<strong>the</strong>r types of prosodic<br />
phonology (and discourse semantics). The reason why <strong>in</strong>tonation etc. can only play a role <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
second cycle is obvious: syntactic heads which phonologically consist of only suprasegmental<br />
material can only be realized if segmental material has already been provided on an earlier cycle. A<br />
model such as this has as its advantage, fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, that both modules are syntactic (thus stay<strong>in</strong>g<br />
close to <strong>the</strong> conservative assumption that syntax is <strong>the</strong> sole mediator between phonology and<br />
semantics) while <strong>the</strong>y are also ordered and have different functions (thus captur<strong>in</strong>g some of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>sights of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation structure based accounts).<br />
Vocative 'case' is obviously not assigned <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> earlier cycle, s<strong>in</strong>ce it has no connection to <strong>the</strong>matic<br />
structure and is not a structural case <strong>in</strong> any way. We argue that it is assigned by an [addressee] head.<br />
Vocative is <strong>the</strong>refore different from o<strong>the</strong>r morphological cases, s<strong>in</strong>ce it is assigned <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> 'outer<br />
cycle' of syntax. This opens <strong>the</strong> possibility for it to be realized by <strong>in</strong>tonational tones.<br />
6. Possible extensions. We show how an <strong>in</strong>tonational analysis might also work for some of <strong>the</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r truncated vocatives of languages of <strong>the</strong> world, as well as possibly to imperatives (which<br />
similarly may be l<strong>in</strong>ked to an [adressee] head).<br />
Selected References<br />
Alber, Birgit. (2010) An exploration of truncation <strong>in</strong> Italian. Rutgers Work<strong>in</strong>g Papers <strong>in</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> vol. 3: 1-30. Bat-El,<br />
Outi. (2002). True truncation <strong>in</strong> Colloquial Hebrew Imperatives. Language 78.4: 651-665. Cabré, Teresa & Maria del<br />
Mar Vanrell. (2010) Non-templatic truncation: <strong>the</strong> case of vocatives. Cohn, Abby. (2005). Truncation <strong>in</strong> Indonesian.<br />
Evidence for violable m<strong>in</strong>imal words and AnchorRight. Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of NELS 34, 175-189. Howell, Mortimer Sloper.<br />
1986. A grammar of <strong>the</strong> Classical Arabic language. Delhi: Gian Publish<strong>in</strong>g House. Jensen, John Thayer. (1977). Yapese<br />
Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Michael Yadroff (1996). Modern Russian Vocatives: A Case<br />
of Subtractive Morphology. Journal of Slavic <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong>, pp. 133-153.
Alexandre Delf<strong>in</strong>o, Maria Luiza Cunha Lima & Pablo Arantes (Universidade Federal de M<strong>in</strong>as Gerais)<br />
Prosodic mark<strong>in</strong>g of referential status <strong>in</strong> Brazilian Portuguese<br />
A ris<strong>in</strong>g trend <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> area of reference process<strong>in</strong>g clai<strong>ms</strong> that prosodic and contextual<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation are processed along with grammatical <strong>in</strong>formation as <strong>the</strong> hearer receives<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>put. A view widely accepted (Gundel, 1993, <strong>in</strong>ter alia) posits referential<br />
expressions as tak<strong>in</strong>g a whole range of referential statuses. One central question on<br />
<strong>the</strong> production and perception of prosodically-encoded <strong>in</strong>formation structure relates<br />
to determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g which of <strong>the</strong>se different statuses can receive a specific prosodic<br />
counterpart. Different methods have been used to tap <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong>se differences, rang<strong>in</strong>g<br />
from phonological descriptions to ERP experiments.<br />
In west Germanic languages as English and German, a three-way dist<strong>in</strong>ction - new,<br />
given and accessible - is said to be dist<strong>in</strong>ct <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of prosodic encod<strong>in</strong>g (Baumann,<br />
2006; Baumann & Grice, 2006). Us<strong>in</strong>g ToBI representation, new referents tend<br />
to be marked with a phrasal accent (H*), given referents tend to be deaccented<br />
and accessible referents tend to be marked with an <strong>in</strong>termediate phrase accent<br />
(H+L*). Us<strong>in</strong>g an ERP experiment, Schumacher & Baumann (2010) <strong>in</strong>vestigated<br />
how <strong>the</strong> prosodic <strong>in</strong>formation can affect <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of referents with three<br />
different <strong>in</strong>formational statuses: given, new and accessible. The N400 and latepositivity<br />
results lead <strong>the</strong> authors to conclude that (i) <strong>the</strong> three-way classification<br />
of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>formational status makes difference not only for production, but also for<br />
perception, and (ii) <strong>the</strong> prosodic <strong>in</strong>formation is processed very early, along with o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
grammatical and context <strong>in</strong>formation.<br />
We propose that <strong>the</strong>se methods can be fruitfully aided by more concrete acoustical<br />
analyses. We also <strong>in</strong>tend to <strong>in</strong>vestigate which acoustic parameters are more heavily<br />
<strong>in</strong>volved with this prosodic mark<strong>in</strong>g. Ano<strong>the</strong>r goal is <strong>the</strong> description of <strong>the</strong> prosody<strong>in</strong>formational<br />
status relationship <strong>in</strong> Brazilian Portuguese, a language scarcely<br />
studied, expand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestigation about prosody and referential status relationship<br />
to languages different from <strong>the</strong> West Germanic languages. More specifically,<br />
we tried to see if <strong>the</strong> proposed three-folded statuses can be found <strong>in</strong> Brazilian<br />
Portuguese as well.<br />
For this study, we designed a corpus of approximately 30 groups of sentences,<br />
distributed <strong>in</strong>to three conditions: given, new and accessible. For each group<br />
of sentences, we set one target word, which is embedded <strong>in</strong> a control phrase.<br />
Preced<strong>in</strong>g text determ<strong>in</strong>ed if <strong>the</strong> target NP was given, new or accessible. The<br />
sentences below illustrate <strong>the</strong> construction of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>formational status from <strong>the</strong><br />
context (target words <strong>in</strong> bold):<br />
New<br />
Um terremoto causou destruição em boa parte da costa leste. Várias cidades não<br />
t<strong>in</strong>ham um programa de evacuação, o que deu trabalho para as equipes de resgate.<br />
(An earthquake caused destruction <strong>in</strong> a huge part of <strong>the</strong> East coast. Several cities<br />
did not have an evacuation program, which caused proble<strong>ms</strong> to <strong>the</strong> rescue tea<strong>ms</strong>)<br />
Given<br />
O governo decidiu fechar a us<strong>in</strong>a nuclear após o terremoto ocorrido no mês<br />
passado. O terremoto causou destruição no núcleo do reator, aumentando o risco<br />
de contam<strong>in</strong>ação. (The government decided to shut down <strong>the</strong> nuclear plant after <strong>the</strong><br />
earthquake occurred last month. The earthquake caused destruction to <strong>the</strong> reactor<br />
nucleus, <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> risk of contam<strong>in</strong>ation.)
Acessible<br />
Estudiosos da Sismologia têm procurado analisar os dados de tremores para prever<br />
novas ocorrências. O terremoto causou destruição sem que n<strong>in</strong>guem pudesse se<br />
prevenir.<br />
(Seismology experts have tried to analyse <strong>the</strong> tremors data to predict new<br />
occurences. The earthquake caused destruction without any one be<strong>in</strong>g able to<br />
prevent it.)<br />
Four participants read a list conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g n<strong>in</strong>ety randomized groups of sentences,<br />
presented one by one <strong>in</strong> a computer screen. In order to ascerta<strong>in</strong> that <strong>the</strong> three<br />
referential statuses have dist<strong>in</strong>ct prosodic patterns, a number of acoustic features<br />
(traditionally seen as correlates of prosodic prom<strong>in</strong>ence) were analyzed: (a) target<br />
word duration, (b) F0 mean, standard deviation (SD) and range and (c) timenormalized<br />
F0 contours of <strong>the</strong> DP conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> target word. Data from <strong>the</strong> four<br />
subjects were analyzed separately. Analysis of variance was used to determ<strong>in</strong>e if<br />
differences <strong>in</strong> mean values of <strong>the</strong> acoustic parameters were statistically different.<br />
The statistical analysis showed that referential status does not significantly affect<br />
F0 SD and range for all speakers. Mean F0 and word duration were affected by<br />
referential status for three of <strong>the</strong> subjects (new referents have higher mean F0 and<br />
are longer than given and/or accessible ones). Analysis of <strong>the</strong> time-nomalized F0<br />
contours revealed that F0 contours of new referents are different from <strong>the</strong> given and<br />
accessible ones. Despite <strong>in</strong>dividual variability, new referents are characterized by <strong>the</strong><br />
presence of two major pitch peaks, one extend<strong>in</strong>g through <strong>the</strong> cha<strong>in</strong> of pre-stressed<br />
syllables and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r aligned to <strong>the</strong> stressed syllable. Given and accessible<br />
referents contours are very similar to each o<strong>the</strong>r and tend to: (a) have just one peak,<br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r aligned to <strong>the</strong> pre-stressed syllables or to <strong>the</strong> stressed or (b) be relatively<br />
flat. The current results lead us to conclude that from <strong>the</strong> speech production side<br />
prosody plays an important role signal<strong>in</strong>g referential status, ma<strong>in</strong>ly differentiat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
new referents from o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
References<br />
BAUMANN, S. 2006. The Intonation of Givenness - Evidence from German.<br />
L<strong>in</strong>guistische Arbeiten, n.508. Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: Niemeyer.<br />
BAUMANN S, GRICE, M. 2006. The <strong>in</strong>tonation of accessibility. Journal of<br />
Pragmatics. v. 38, 1636–1657.<br />
GUNDEL, J. et al. 1993. Cognitive Status and <strong>the</strong> Form of Referr<strong>in</strong>g Expressions. In:<br />
Discourse. Language, v. 69, n. 2, 274-307.<br />
SCHUMACHER, P. & BAUMANN, S. 2010. Pitch accent type affects <strong>the</strong> N400<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g referencial process<strong>in</strong>g. NeuroReport, vol. 21, n. 9, 618-622.
Ewan Dunbar (Maryland), Brian Dillon (UMass Amherst) & William Idsardi (Maryland)<br />
Learn<strong>in</strong>g phonetic categories by learn<strong>in</strong>g allophony & vice versa: a computational model<br />
We consider <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>fant’s early problem of group<strong>in</strong>g signals <strong>in</strong>to phonetic categories, (Werker and<br />
Tees 1984), as well as <strong>the</strong> problem of learn<strong>in</strong>g allophonic processes, and demonstrate how <strong>the</strong>se<br />
relate to Tesar et al.’s (2003) problem of mutual dependence <strong>in</strong> language acquisition: learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
one component of a full grammatical system affects what <strong>the</strong> (best) hypo<strong>the</strong>ses about some<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r component will be, and vice versa. We present <strong>the</strong> results of an unsupervised Bayesian<br />
statistical model of phonetic category and process learn<strong>in</strong>g which learns categories and grammar<br />
jo<strong>in</strong>tly, allow<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>in</strong>teraction between <strong>the</strong> two learn<strong>in</strong>g proble<strong>ms</strong>. We compare our model to<br />
modular learners, which separate phonetic category learn<strong>in</strong>g from grammatical learn<strong>in</strong>g, and<br />
demonstrate that <strong>the</strong> phonetic category learn<strong>in</strong>g problem and <strong>the</strong> grammar learn<strong>in</strong>g problem are<br />
mutually dependent. This implies that standard phonological learn<strong>in</strong>g models cannot be taken<br />
at face value, because, as <strong>the</strong>y are conventionally formulated, <strong>the</strong>y take <strong>in</strong>puts pre-categorized<br />
<strong>in</strong>to phones or features, and thus build <strong>in</strong> an implicit modularity assumption. We show fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
that our model succeeds <strong>in</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g contextual rules without observ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> contexts <strong>the</strong><strong>ms</strong>elves.<br />
In particular, we consider data from Inuktitut (Eskimo-Aleut, Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Canada), a language<br />
with a three-vowel system. Uvular consonants trigger allophony for all three vowels: before<br />
[q] and [K], /i u a/ → [e o A] respectively (see Figure 1). We use phonetic data elicited from a<br />
native speaker (F1 × F2, segmented; Denis and Pollard 2008) and fit a Bayesian model of phonetic<br />
category syste<strong>ms</strong> as simple dependent Dirichlet processes (Ferguson 1973; MacEachern<br />
1999). Each category is a multivariate Gaussian distribution which is shifted by some amount<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> context of a uvular. (The shift is a real vector, i.e., we model <strong>the</strong> allophonic process as<br />
sub-categorical; see Port and O’Dell 1986; Cohn 1990.) The output of learn<strong>in</strong>g is a system of<br />
categories and processes learned jo<strong>in</strong>tly. The model is unsupervised: it learns <strong>the</strong> number of<br />
categories, <strong>the</strong>ir locations and shapes, and <strong>the</strong> degree of pre-uvular retraction per category, entirely<br />
on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> statistics of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>put. In Model 1, <strong>the</strong> learner is told whe<strong>the</strong>r each token<br />
preceded a uvular. The learner f<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>the</strong> three vowel phonemes of Inuktitut (Figure 2) with results<br />
more accurate than a standard phonetic category model (Dirichlet process mixture model,<br />
e.g. <strong>the</strong> distributional learn<strong>in</strong>g algorithm of Feldman et al. 2009, F statistic for classification<br />
0.75 for our model vs 0.69 for <strong>the</strong> standard model, 12 runs; t = 4.26, p < 0.001). Crucially, if<br />
we encourage a distributional learner to f<strong>in</strong>d more categories, lead<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> discovery of all six<br />
allophones, and <strong>the</strong>n use <strong>the</strong>se categories’ context distributions as <strong>in</strong>put to <strong>the</strong> GLA (Boersma<br />
1997) or <strong>the</strong> statistical allophone learn<strong>in</strong>g model of Peperkamp et al. (2006), we fail to learn <strong>the</strong><br />
relevant categorical rule, as <strong>the</strong> learned allophones are too poorly aligned with <strong>the</strong> true ones.<br />
In Model 2, <strong>the</strong> learner is not told whe<strong>the</strong>r a uvular followed, but only <strong>the</strong> approximate frequency<br />
of follow<strong>in</strong>g uvulars. This simulates a learner who has not fully learned to categorize<br />
<strong>the</strong> relevant features of <strong>the</strong> context, or one who is learn<strong>in</strong>g a language <strong>in</strong> which a trigger<strong>in</strong>g<br />
environment is obscured by a later process <strong>in</strong> a counterbleed<strong>in</strong>g relation. This model succeeds<br />
<strong>in</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> vowels of Inuktitut and simultaneously discover<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> uvular/non-uvular dist<strong>in</strong>ction<br />
only by observ<strong>in</strong>g vowel tokens (Figure 3). As before, <strong>the</strong> model f<strong>in</strong>ds three categories<br />
and three rules (although it cannot reliably determ<strong>in</strong>e which phones are <strong>the</strong> output and which<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>put of <strong>the</strong> rules). We show that this is not an accident of Inuktitut uvulars, and that <strong>the</strong><br />
model also learns a subset of English vowel categories along with systematic sex differences <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> pronunciations of those vowels, without observ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> sex of <strong>the</strong> speaker.<br />
Our results demonstrate that (1) allophony and o<strong>the</strong>r contextual effects are crucial <strong>in</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
phonetic categories; (2) <strong>the</strong> shape of phonetic categories <strong>the</strong><strong>ms</strong>elves can be helpful <strong>in</strong> detect<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> effects of context. This mutual dependence is consistent with <strong>the</strong> strongly <strong>in</strong>teractive<br />
character of category identification <strong>in</strong> speech perception (Liberman et al., 1953; Whalen et al.,<br />
1997). We conclude that this lack of strong modularity extends to learn<strong>in</strong>g.
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3<br />
Figure 1: Phones of Inuktitut; [e], [A] and [o] are allophonically related to [i], [a], and [u].<br />
Figure 2: Output of Model 1. Dotted l<strong>in</strong>es: categories shifted by learned contextual rules.<br />
Figure 3: Output of Model 2 (contextual rules learned without knowledge of context).<br />
References<br />
de Boer, B., and P. Kuhl. 2003. Investigat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> role of <strong>in</strong>fant-directed speech with a<br />
computer model. Acoustics Research Letters Onl<strong>in</strong>e 4.129–134.<br />
Boersma, P. How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. IFA Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs 21.37–42.<br />
Cohn, A. 1990. Phonetic and phonological rules of nasalization. UCLA dissertation.<br />
Denis, D., and M. Pollard. 2008. An Acoustic Analysis of The Vowel Space of Inuktitut.<br />
Presented at Inuktitut <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> Workshop, University of Toronto.<br />
Feldman, N., T. Griffiths, and J. Morgan. 2009. Learn<strong>in</strong>g Phonetic Categories by Learn<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
Lexicon. Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of 31st Annual Conference of Cognitive Science Society 2208–2213.<br />
Ferguson, T. 1973. Bayesian analysis of nonparametric proble<strong>ms</strong>. Ann. of Stats 1.209–230.<br />
Liberman, M., and J. Pierrehumbert. 1984. Intonational <strong>in</strong>variance under changes <strong>in</strong> pitch<br />
range and length. In Language sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.<br />
MacEachearn, S. 1999. Dependent nonparametric processes. ASA Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong> Section<br />
on Bayesian Statistical Science 50–55.<br />
McMurray, B., R. Asl<strong>in</strong>, and J. Toscano. 2009. Statistical learn<strong>in</strong>g of phonetic categories:<br />
Insights from a computational approach. Developmental Science 12.369–78.<br />
Peperkamp, S., R. Le Calvez, J-P. Nadal, and E. Dupoux. 2006. The acquisition of allophonic<br />
rules: statistical learn<strong>in</strong>g with l<strong>in</strong>guistic constra<strong>in</strong>ts. Cognition 101.B31–B41.<br />
Port, R., and M. O’Dell. 1986. Neutralization of syllable-f<strong>in</strong>al voic<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> German. J. of<br />
Phonetics 13.455–471.<br />
Teh, YW, M. Jordan, M. Beal, and D. Blei. 2006. Hierarchical Dirichlet processes. Journal of<br />
<strong>the</strong> American Statistical Association 101.1566–1581.<br />
Tesar, B., J. Alderete, G. Horwood, N. Merchant, K. Nishitani, and A. Pr<strong>in</strong>ce. 2003. Surgery <strong>in</strong><br />
language learn<strong>in</strong>g. In Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong> 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong>.<br />
Vallabha, G., J. McClelland, F. Pons, J. Werker, and S. Amano. 2007. Unsupervised learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of vowel categories from <strong>in</strong>fant-directed speech. Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong> National Academy of<br />
Sciences of <strong>the</strong> United States of America 104.13273–8.<br />
Werker, J., and R. Tees. 1984. Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual<br />
reorganization dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development 7.49–63.
Francesca Foppolo (Milano-Bicocca), Marco Marelli (Milano-Bicocca), Luisa Meroni (Utrecht) & Andrea Gualm<strong>in</strong>i (Utrecht)<br />
Pars<strong>in</strong>g Semantic Ambiguity: strategies and commitments<br />
Consider sentence (1) <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> scenario <strong>in</strong> Fig. 1:<br />
(1) The small square is <strong>the</strong> only one that is a policeman<br />
Sentence (1) is ambiguous depend<strong>in</strong>g on what referent is<br />
considered for one: ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> set of all geometrical<br />
figures/th<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> context (exhophoric <strong>in</strong>terpretation)<br />
or <strong>the</strong> set of squares (anaphoric <strong>in</strong>terpretation). The way<br />
we <strong>in</strong>terpret one has an effect on <strong>the</strong> truth value of <strong>the</strong><br />
whole sentence: (1) is True if we <strong>in</strong>terpret one<br />
anaphorically (amongst <strong>the</strong> squares, <strong>the</strong> small one is<br />
<strong>in</strong>deed <strong>the</strong> only one to be a policeman) but it is False if<br />
we <strong>in</strong>terpret one exophorically (<strong>in</strong> fact, amongst <strong>the</strong><br />
th<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> context, <strong>the</strong> small square is not <strong>the</strong> only one<br />
to be a policeman).<br />
Fig.1<br />
Test<strong>in</strong>g children and adults with sentences similar to (1), Cra<strong>in</strong> et.al. (1994) concluded that<br />
����������� ������� �������� �� ��������� ������������ - ��<br />
exhophoric <strong>in</strong>terpretation) while �������� ������� ��� ��������� �������<br />
choose <strong>the</strong> weaker-anaphoric <strong>in</strong>terpretation). We <strong>in</strong>tend to argue aga<strong>in</strong>st this conclusion on <strong>the</strong> basis<br />
of two experimental studies <strong>in</strong> which we show that adults do not conform to a M<strong>in</strong>imal<br />
Commitment strategy (Exp.1) or to a Maximal Commitment strategy (Exp. 2).<br />
We conclude by propos<strong>in</strong>g a more general pr<strong>in</strong>ciple of process<strong>in</strong>g and ambiguity resolution that<br />
<strong>in</strong>structs <strong>the</strong> parser to consider <strong>the</strong> highest number of available referents .<br />
Our experimental studies. We tested two groups of Italian speak<strong>in</strong>g adults by means of two<br />
studies employ<strong>in</strong>g a Visual <strong>World</strong> Paradigm <strong>in</strong> which subjects were asked to judge a series of<br />
sentences (as True or False) relatively to a scenario while <strong>the</strong>ir eye-movements were recorded. The<br />
rationale beh<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> two experiments was <strong>the</strong> same: sentences were presented auditorily aga<strong>in</strong>st a<br />
visual scenario similar to <strong>the</strong> one <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> Fig. 1 display<strong>in</strong>g 4 sets of geometrical figures, letters or<br />
digits. We tested 30 were critical statements like (1) that conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> ambiguous expression è<br />
�����������<br />
(is <strong>the</strong> only one) that needed to be <strong>in</strong>terpreted. The scenario used <strong>in</strong> both experiments<br />
was identical, but <strong>the</strong> two experiments differed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> presence/absence of negation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sentence.<br />
For example, (1) was given <strong>in</strong> Exp.1 aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> scenario <strong>in</strong> Fig. 1 and (5) was given <strong>in</strong> Exp. 2:<br />
(5) The small square is not <strong>the</strong> only one that is a policeman<br />
We also tested 36 unambiguous true and false control sentences �������������<br />
All/Three/None/Some<br />
of <strong>the</strong> N-(Adj) is do<strong>in</strong>g P������ varied with respect to <strong>the</strong> type of exploration strategy required to<br />
evaluate <strong>the</strong>m: (a) controls �������������������<br />
required <strong>the</strong> exploration of <strong>the</strong> whole scenario to be<br />
judged true or false: e.g., to evaluate (2) All <strong>the</strong> yellow numbers are k<strong>in</strong>gs one needs to check all <strong>the</strong><br />
yellow ite<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> scenario to make sure that all of <strong>the</strong>m are k<strong>in</strong>gs; (b) controls ���������������<br />
required <strong>the</strong> exploration of only one of <strong>the</strong> quadrants <strong>in</strong> order to come up with a decision: e.g., to<br />
evaluate (3) Three crosses are play<strong>in</strong>g football, it suffices to check only <strong>the</strong> quadrant that conta<strong>in</strong>s<br />
crosses; (c) controls �������� ������ an exploration ��������� at random <strong>in</strong> order to f<strong>in</strong>d a<br />
counterexample and tell if <strong>the</strong> sentence was true or false: e.g., to evaluate (4) None of <strong>the</strong> blue<br />
letters are happy ��������������<br />
suffices to f<strong>in</strong>d a letter that is blue and happy and <strong>the</strong>n stop explor<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Crucially, <strong>the</strong> presence of <strong>the</strong> negation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> critical sentences presented <strong>in</strong> Experiment 2 reverses<br />
<strong>the</strong> entailment pattern between <strong>the</strong> two <strong>in</strong>terpretations, so that <strong>the</strong> anaphoric <strong>in</strong>terpretation becomes<br />
<strong>the</strong> strongest: if ambiguity resolution were based on <strong>the</strong> entailment relationship between <strong>the</strong>
alternative read<strong>in</strong>gs, <strong>the</strong>n an opposite pattern of exploration should be expected <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> two<br />
experiments. In particular, if adults followed a M<strong>in</strong>imal Commitment strategy, as Cra<strong>in</strong> et al.<br />
suggest, <strong>the</strong>y should always select <strong>the</strong> weakest <strong>in</strong>terpretation, <strong>the</strong> one that makes <strong>the</strong> sentence True.<br />
This corresponds to <strong>the</strong> anaphoric <strong>in</strong>terpretation <strong>in</strong> Exp. 1 (it is true that <strong>the</strong> small square is <strong>the</strong> only<br />
square that is a policeman) but to <strong>the</strong> exophoric <strong>in</strong>terpretation <strong>in</strong> Exp. 2 (it is true that <strong>the</strong> small<br />
square is not <strong>the</strong> only th<strong>in</strong>g that is a policeman).<br />
Results. ������� acceptance rate of <strong>the</strong> critical sentences was below 10% <strong>in</strong> Exp. 1 and above 90%<br />
<strong>in</strong> Exp. 2. This shows that <strong>the</strong>y always <strong>in</strong>terpreted one exhophorically, <strong>in</strong>dependently of <strong>the</strong><br />
entailment pattern between <strong>in</strong>terpretations: i.e., <strong>the</strong>y do not conform to a M<strong>in</strong>imal or to a Maximal<br />
Commitment strategy. The pattern of exploration revelaed by <strong>the</strong> eye-movement record<strong>in</strong>gs is<br />
consistent with this hypo<strong>the</strong>sis: <strong>in</strong> both studies, towards <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> sentence, subjects followed<br />
an exploration pattern that ���������� ���� ��������� <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong>y had �������<br />
to look for a<br />
counterexample and all quadrants had equal probability to be looked at, and differed significantly<br />
����� ���� ���������� <strong>in</strong> which fixations ����������<br />
were concentrated on a s<strong>in</strong>gle quadrant (Fig. 2,<br />
based on Exp. 1 as an example).<br />
critical trials ����������������� ������������������������������<br />
Fig. 2. The proportion to looks to target/quadrant 1 (arbitrary chosen) are plotted as a function of <strong>the</strong> sentence timecourse:<br />
IP1 (from 0 to red l<strong>in</strong>e) correspond to <strong>the</strong> (Q)N+Adj segment (e.g. The small square); IP2 (<strong>in</strong> between <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>es)<br />
corresponds to <strong>the</strong> critical segment is <strong>the</strong> only one that <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> critical trials and to a short pause <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> controls; IP3:<br />
(from green l<strong>in</strong>e to <strong>the</strong> end) corresponds to <strong>the</strong> whole VP (e.g. is a policeman).<br />
Instead of focus<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> quadrant of <strong>the</strong> squares (anaphoric <strong>in</strong>terpretation), adults moved around<br />
to check for <strong>the</strong> truth/falsity of <strong>the</strong> exhophoric <strong>in</strong>terpretation, as if <strong>the</strong>y were scann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> whole<br />
scenario <strong>in</strong> search of a counterexample. This result was corroborated by a series of logistic<br />
regression models <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> likelihood of look<strong>in</strong>g at <strong>the</strong> target quadrant was modeled as a<br />
function of <strong>the</strong> strategy of exploration (cf. Table 1, based on Exp. 1 as an example): <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> decisionmak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
period (IP4), after <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> sentence, <strong>the</strong> proportion of looks to target <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> critical<br />
��������������������������������������������������<br />
=.182).<br />
IP 1 IP 2 IP 3 IP 4<br />
Table 1 Estimate p Estimate p Estimate p Estimate p<br />
critical trials -.37 .0397 .71 .0001 -.34 .0037 -.58 .0001<br />
controls ����� -.97 .0269 -2.08 .0001 -1.08 .0001 -.35 .1820<br />
controls ��������� -.69 .0351 -1.79 .0001 -0.71 .0001 -.47 .0154<br />
controls ���������-1.04<br />
.0005 -.71 .0011 1.72 .0001 1.21 .0001<br />
Conclusions. We found no evidence of a bias that would be based on <strong>the</strong> truth value of <strong>the</strong> read<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
under consideration or <strong>the</strong> entailment relationship between <strong>the</strong>m: <strong>in</strong> both studies, adults <strong>in</strong>terpreted<br />
one exhophorically, always consider<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> whole scenario. This f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> conjunction with<br />
�������������������������������������������������������<br />
<strong>the</strong> need to postulate a preference for<br />
<strong>the</strong> strong read<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> same sentences <strong>in</strong> children, <strong>in</strong>vites us to consider whe<strong>the</strong>r such truth<br />
conditional properties play any role <strong>in</strong> ambiguity resolution. Instead, our f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs suggest that<br />
adults follow a more general pars<strong>in</strong>g strategy <strong>in</strong> solv<strong>in</strong>g semantic ambiguity: when a (visual/rich)<br />
context is given, <strong>the</strong> parser maximally exploits it.
Michael Freedman (Yale)<br />
Contextual Disambiguation of Have-Sentences<br />
Background: Have-sentences can encode relations that express k<strong>in</strong>ship (1a), part-whole (1b),<br />
possessor-possessee (1c), and conta<strong>in</strong>er-conta<strong>in</strong>ee (1d) relationships. They also seem to be able<br />
to encode completely context dependent relations (1e).<br />
(1) (a) KINSHIP: John has a sister. (Partee, 1999)<br />
(b) PART-WHOLE/INALIENABLE POSSESSION: John has a hand.<br />
(c) TRUE POSSESSION/CONTROL: John has a pen.<br />
(d) CONTAINER: That glass has w<strong>in</strong>e. (Gutierrez-Rexach, 2006)<br />
(e) ASSIGNMENT (BY CONTEXT): Eliza has <strong>the</strong> mirror (to wash). (Tham, 2004)<br />
Problem: A subset of have-sentences are ambiguous <strong>in</strong> what relation <strong>the</strong>y express (table 1). But<br />
it is clear that one read<strong>in</strong>g is available out-of-<strong>the</strong>-blue, which I will refer to as <strong>in</strong>herently salient.<br />
Because <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r read<strong>in</strong>g(s) need context to become salient; I will call <strong>the</strong>se contextually licensed.<br />
The questions that I aim to address are (1) what mechanism expla<strong>in</strong>s why certa<strong>in</strong> read<strong>in</strong>gs are <strong>in</strong>herently<br />
salient and (2) what is <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>teraction with context that expla<strong>in</strong>s when <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r (contextually<br />
licensed) read<strong>in</strong>gs become available.<br />
Sentence <strong>in</strong>herently salient contextually licensed<br />
John has a sister k<strong>in</strong>ship control, assignment(?)<br />
John has a d<strong>in</strong>osaur tail part-whole/control<br />
Eliza has a mirror. control assignment<br />
The dumpster has a hand part-whole conta<strong>in</strong>er<br />
Table 1: Have-sentences and <strong>the</strong>ir possible read<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />
In this paper, I argue that a pragmatic filter can disambiguate <strong>the</strong> different read<strong>in</strong>gs of havesentences<br />
and that <strong>the</strong> amount of ambiguity present comes not only from <strong>the</strong> underspecification<br />
of <strong>the</strong> relation encoded by have but by <strong>the</strong> context dependence of some verbal complements.<br />
Analysis: Assume that have encodes a relation between <strong>in</strong>dividuals (cf. Beavers et al. (2008),<br />
Partee (1999)). Relational nouns <strong>the</strong>n need to be treated as properties (type 〈e, t〉) <strong>in</strong> order for <strong>the</strong><br />
ord<strong>in</strong>ary derivation of sentences with transitive verbs to take place. I treat relational nouns as this<br />
type (〈e, t〉) but with a free contextual argument, follow<strong>in</strong>g work on o<strong>the</strong>r relational predicates like<br />
local and w<strong>in</strong> (Condoravdi & Gawron (1996)). Concretely, have is treated as an underspecified<br />
relation fixed by an assignment function (as <strong>in</strong> (2d)) and a relational noun is represented as a relation<br />
that has a free variable as an argument (as <strong>in</strong> (2a)). A full compositional treatment of <strong>the</strong> sentence<br />
John has a sister is provided <strong>in</strong> (2):<br />
(2) (a) [sister]= λx.sister(x,y), where <strong>the</strong> value of y is fixed by an assignment function.<br />
(b) [a]= λPλQ∃z[P(z) ∧ Q(z)]<br />
(c) [a sister]= λQ∃z[sister(c,z) ∧ Q(z) ]<br />
(d) [have](type-raised) = λPλw[P(λv[π(w,v)])]<br />
where π is an underspecified relation fixed by an assignment function.<br />
(e) [have a sister]= λPλw[P(λv[π(w,v)])](λQ∃z[sister(c,z) ∧ Q(z) ])<br />
= λw[∃z[sister(c,z) ∧ π(w,z)]]<br />
(f) [John]= j<br />
(g) [John has a sister]= λw[∃z[sister(c,z) ∧ π(w,z)]](j)<br />
= ∃z[sister(c,z) ∧ π(j,z)]<br />
A pragmatic mechanism is necessary because simply posit<strong>in</strong>g a context variable makes no<br />
predictions on what relation <strong>the</strong> variable will express. I will assume a question-based model of<br />
discourse (QUD) (Roberts, 2006) <strong>in</strong> order to resolve <strong>the</strong> variables <strong>in</strong> have and <strong>in</strong> relational nouns;
<strong>in</strong> addition, I will have <strong>the</strong> discourse model track what elements (<strong>in</strong>dividuals, relations) are salient<br />
(similar to Grosz & Sidner, 1986). Salient <strong>in</strong>dividuals are <strong>the</strong> set of <strong>in</strong>dividuals and salient relations<br />
are <strong>the</strong> set of relations that have been <strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> discourse ei<strong>the</strong>r explicitly or through<br />
<strong>the</strong> use of discourse questions. The QUD is <strong>the</strong> current question that needs to be addressed <strong>in</strong><br />
some way as <strong>the</strong> next “move” <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> discourse. In addition, I assume that <strong>the</strong>re is a default relation<br />
that have expresses when <strong>the</strong>re is no context; CONTROL is <strong>the</strong> default when <strong>the</strong> subject is animate.<br />
This relation is a reasonable default because it is closest to <strong>the</strong> core notion of possession. I will go<br />
through three cases to illustrate how <strong>the</strong> system works:<br />
Case 1 (In context): In a standard discourse <strong>the</strong> resolution of have and relational nouns is determ<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
jo<strong>in</strong>tly by what is salient and what <strong>the</strong> current question is. The variable associated with have<br />
resolves to a salient relation, if <strong>the</strong>re is a relational noun, <strong>the</strong> variable associated with it resolves<br />
to a salient <strong>in</strong>dividual, and <strong>the</strong> sentence as a whole addresses <strong>the</strong> current question under discussion.<br />
In (3), <strong>the</strong> QUD is “where are <strong>the</strong> victim’s ar<strong>ms</strong>”, <strong>the</strong> salient relations are <strong>the</strong> hand-relation (from<br />
<strong>the</strong> utterance) and <strong>the</strong> conta<strong>in</strong>er relation (based on <strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong> locative <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> QUD), and <strong>the</strong><br />
only salient <strong>in</strong>dividual is <strong>the</strong> victim. π is resolved to <strong>the</strong> conta<strong>in</strong>er-relation because <strong>the</strong> relation is<br />
salient and because with that relation <strong>the</strong> QUD is partially answered (<strong>the</strong> subquestion “where is<br />
one of <strong>the</strong> victim’s hands” is answered); c resolves to <strong>the</strong> victim because <strong>the</strong> victim is salient and<br />
because it is coherent as part of a response that partially answers <strong>the</strong> QUD. This example shows<br />
how a CONTAINER read<strong>in</strong>g for have can be contexutally licensed.<br />
(3) Scenario: Two police detectives John and Mary are at a crime scene<br />
<strong>in</strong> an alley. A murder victim has been dismembered and <strong>the</strong> detectives are look<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>the</strong><br />
victim’s rema<strong>in</strong>s. John asks “where are his ar<strong>ms</strong>?” Mary replies “that dumpster has a hand”.<br />
(4)<br />
QUD: Where are <strong>the</strong> victim’s ar<strong>ms</strong>?<br />
Salient sets: hand(x,y), conta<strong>in</strong>s(x,y)<br />
Salient <strong>in</strong>dividuals: <strong>the</strong> victim<br />
QUD relevant = conta<strong>in</strong>s<br />
⇒ c = <strong>the</strong> victim, π = conta<strong>in</strong>s(x,y)<br />
Case 2 (Out-of-<strong>the</strong>-blue): In out-of-<strong>the</strong>-blue scenarios, <strong>the</strong>re is no QUD and no salient <strong>in</strong>dividuals<br />
or relations prior to <strong>the</strong> first utterance of <strong>the</strong> discourse. In a sentence without a relational noun,<br />
<strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g of have will assume a default value of CONTROL (for animates) or CONTAINER (for<br />
<strong>in</strong>animates). For <strong>in</strong>stance, if person A says to person B out-of-<strong>the</strong>-blue “I have a pen” <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
no QUD, and no salient relations. Person B can give mean<strong>in</strong>g to person B’s utterance by giv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
a value to π which comes from what rema<strong>in</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> “bleached” default lexical mean<strong>in</strong>g of have<br />
(CONTROL). This example shows why have expresses a CONTROL relation when <strong>the</strong>re is no prior<br />
discourse context and <strong>the</strong> subject is animate.<br />
Case 3 (Inherently salient w/ relational noun complement): If <strong>the</strong>re is a relational noun <strong>in</strong> object<br />
position, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> relation associated with <strong>the</strong> relational noun gets added to <strong>the</strong> list of salient<br />
relations and becomes a suitable relation for have to express and so π is resolved to that relation.<br />
The resolution of <strong>the</strong> variable associated with <strong>the</strong> relational noun will be to an <strong>in</strong>dividual that is<br />
salient <strong>in</strong> that utterance (i.e. <strong>the</strong> subject). So, if out-of-<strong>the</strong>-blue Speaker A says to Speaker B “I have<br />
a sister”, <strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g of have resolves to <strong>the</strong> sister relation. The c variable resolves to <strong>the</strong> subject<br />
because<strong>the</strong> subject is <strong>the</strong> only salient <strong>in</strong>dividual. This example shows why have takes <strong>the</strong> relation<br />
of its complement if <strong>the</strong>re is no discourse context and <strong>the</strong> complement is a relational noun.<br />
Selected References: Beavers, J., S. Wechsler, and E. Ponvert. (2008) Possession of a controlled substantive: Light<br />
have and verbs of possession. Condoravdi, C. & Gawron, J.M. (1996). The context-dependency of implicit arguments.<br />
Grosz, B. & Sidner, L. (1986) Attentions, Inentions, and <strong>the</strong> Structure of Discourse. Gutierrez-Rexach, J. (2006).<br />
Beyond <strong>the</strong> (<strong>in</strong>)def<strong>in</strong>iteness restriction: A unified semantics for have. Partee, B. (1999). Weak NP’s <strong>in</strong> HAVE Sentences.<br />
Roberts, C. (1996) Information Structure <strong>in</strong> Discourse. Tham, S. (2004) The Def<strong>in</strong>iteness Effect <strong>in</strong> English Have<br />
Sentences.
Longdistance Anaphora <strong>in</strong> Mandar<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong> PCC, and Cyclic Agree <br />
Mandar<strong>in</strong> conta<strong>in</strong>s a reflexive form, ziji, that can function as a local reflexive. However, <br />
ziji can also take an antecedent outside its local doma<strong>in</strong>. As shown <strong>in</strong> (1a‐e), ziji can be <br />
bound by <strong>the</strong> closest subject or <strong>the</strong> matrix subject (Cole, et al., 2006 and references <br />
<strong>the</strong>re<strong>in</strong>). Such long‐distance b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g is constra<strong>in</strong>ed by a block<strong>in</strong>g effect, such that subject <br />
DPs that differ <strong>in</strong> person features appear to block higher subject DPs from b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g ziji. <br />
However, a difference <strong>in</strong> person features is not a sufficient condition for <strong>the</strong> block<strong>in</strong>g <br />
effect. Instead, we see that subjects <strong>in</strong> a 1>3 configuration allow long‐distance <br />
antecedents but subjects <strong>in</strong> a 3>1 configuration block long‐distance antecedents. Thus, <br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terference pattern that emerges <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> block<strong>in</strong>g effect is not symmetrical (see <br />
examples (1a‐g)). <br />
<br />
1) <br />
a) Zhangsani zhidao Lisij bu xihuan zijii/j e) Nii zhidao Lisij bu xihuan zijii/j <br />
Zhagshan know Lisi not like self You know Lisi not like self <br />
‘Zhangsan knew that Lisi did not like ‘You knew that Lisi did not like <br />
me/hi<strong>ms</strong>elf’ <br />
you/hi<strong>ms</strong>elf <br />
b) Woi zhidao Lisij bu xihuan zijii/j f) Lisii zhidao Woj bu xihuan ziji*i/j <br />
I know Lisi not like self <br />
Lisi know I not like self <br />
‘I knew that Lisi did not like ‘Lisi knew that I did not like <br />
me/hi<strong>ms</strong>elf <br />
*him/myself’ <br />
c) Woi zhidao Nij bu xihuan zijii/j g) Lisii zhidao Nij bu xihuan ziji*i/j <br />
I know you not like self Lisi know you not like self <br />
‘I knew that you did not like ‘Lisi knew that you did not like <br />
me/yourself’ <br />
*him/yourself’ <br />
d) Nii zhidao Woj bu xihuan zijii/j <br />
You know I not like self <br />
‘You knew that I did not like <br />
you/myself’ <br />
<br />
Strik<strong>in</strong>gly, this <strong>in</strong>terference pattern replicates a pattern of <strong>in</strong>tervention that is known as <br />
<strong>the</strong> personcase constra<strong>in</strong>t. Anagnostopoulou characterizes <strong>the</strong> PCC such that “[i]n a <br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ation of a weak direct object and an <strong>in</strong>direct object [clitic, agreement marker, or <br />
weak pronoun], if <strong>the</strong>re is a third person it has to be <strong>the</strong> direct object” (2005, p. 203). <br />
Compare Tables 1 and 2. <br />
<br />
INDIRECT DIRECT PCC HIGHEST SUBJECT LOWEST SUBJECT ZIJI <br />
OBJECT <br />
1 <br />
OBJECT <br />
3 � <br />
<br />
PERSON <br />
1 <br />
PERSON <br />
3 <br />
LDR <br />
� <br />
1 <br />
2 <br />
2 <br />
1 <br />
� <br />
� <br />
1 <br />
2 <br />
2 <br />
1 <br />
� <br />
� <br />
2 3 � 2 3 � <br />
3 1 � <br />
3 1 � <br />
3 2 � 3 2 � <br />
Table 1 – Interference pattern for PCC Table 2 – Interference pattern for ziji <br />
Follow<strong>in</strong>g an analysis <strong>in</strong> Cole, et al. (2006), I propose that long‐distance b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of ziji is <br />
<strong>the</strong> result of covert head movement and that ziji is sensitive to person hierarchies as <br />
conceived <strong>in</strong> Bejar and Rezac (2009). These two facts restrict <strong>the</strong> configurations that <br />
license <strong>the</strong> long‐distance b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of ziji. <br />
<br />
Ia<strong>in</strong> Gibl<strong>in</strong> (MIT)
2) [IP Zhangsan [I zijii ] [VP yiwei [IP Lisi [I t’i ] [VP pip<strong>in</strong>g‐le ti ] ] ] ] <br />
Zhangsan self th<strong>in</strong>k Lisi criticize‐Perf <br />
In (2) above, each I0 agrees with its specifier and ziji must <strong>the</strong>refore agree with <strong>the</strong> <br />
subject upon adjunction to I0 . However, if ziji’s ϕ‐features are structured so <strong>the</strong>y are <br />
sensitive to <strong>the</strong> person hierarchies of Bejar and Rezac (2009, see Table 3 below) we can <br />
generate <strong>the</strong> block<strong>in</strong>g effect and its asymmetrical structure. <br />
<br />
Table 2<br />
Person specifications<br />
C Y C L I C A G R E E 43<br />
A: Person specifications B: Shorthand 1�2�3 C: Shorthand 2�1�3<br />
3rd 2nd 1st 3rd 2nd 1st 3rd 2nd 1st<br />
<br />
<br />
Table 3 – Bejar and Rezac person hierarchy / articulated probe <br />
Let us assume that ziji is a partially articulated probe that searches for [participant] and <br />
<strong>the</strong>refore seeks to check [3][2]. In 1/2 > 3 configurations movement of ziji to <strong>the</strong> lowest <br />
I0 checks <strong>the</strong> [3] segment of <strong>the</strong> anaphor <strong>the</strong>refore allow<strong>in</strong>g ziji to be valued by I0 . <br />
However, this leaves an unchecked [2]. Thus, <strong>the</strong> unchecked [2] on <strong>the</strong> anaphor licenses <br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r movement of ziji to <strong>the</strong> higher I0 <strong>in</strong> search of a [+participant] argument. If <strong>the</strong> <br />
higher I0 has obta<strong>in</strong>ed [+participant] features through agreement with <strong>the</strong> subject, <strong>the</strong>n <br />
ziji can adjo<strong>in</strong> to <strong>the</strong> higher I0 and valuation can take place. Thus, a higher argument can <br />
be [+participant] and a lower argument can be [‐participant]. However, <strong>the</strong> converse <br />
does not hold. If ziji first adjo<strong>in</strong>s to an I0 that is [+participant] both of ziji’s person <br />
features ([3] and [2]) will be checked leav<strong>in</strong>g no residue that would license fur<strong>the</strong>r <br />
movement (unless <strong>the</strong> higher I0 agrees for [+participant]). Thus, a higher [3] argument <br />
is <strong>in</strong>accessible because <strong>the</strong> anaphor has been marked as [+participant] and <strong>the</strong> higher I0 [�] [�] [�] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3]<br />
[participant] [participant] [2] [2] [1] [1]<br />
[speaker] [1] [2]<br />
(structure) [F] entails a feature (structure) [F′] if and only if [F′] is a subset (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g identity)<br />
of <strong>the</strong> least set conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g [F]. For example, be<strong>in</strong>g specified as [speaker] entails be<strong>in</strong>g specified as<br />
[participant] and as [�].<br />
<br />
is [‐participant]. <br />
The proposed analysis has some welcome consequences. Firstly, it expla<strong>in</strong>s <strong>the</strong> block<strong>in</strong>g <br />
effect. Secondly, it provides a pr<strong>in</strong>cipled explanation of <strong>the</strong> asymmetry <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> block<strong>in</strong>g <br />
effect that is not expla<strong>in</strong>ed by <strong>the</strong> head movement approach alone. Thirdly, it <br />
demonstrates that AGREE based approaches to b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g offer pr<strong>in</strong>cipled empirical <br />
coverage and can help expla<strong>in</strong> some of <strong>the</strong> more recalcitrant phenomena of b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <br />
<strong>the</strong>ory. <br />
References <br />
Anagnostopoulou, E. (2005). Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature check<strong>in</strong>g analysis. <br />
In L. Heggie and F. Ordonez (Eds.), Clitics and Affixation (pp. 199‐235). A<strong>ms</strong>terdam: John <br />
Benjam<strong>in</strong>s. <br />
5 These entailments translate <strong>in</strong>to degrees of privative feature specification<br />
through a heuristic of logical underspecification, where �-values are differentiated only by <strong>the</strong><br />
presence versus absence of features, as <strong>in</strong> table 2 (A). This requires specify<strong>in</strong>g default <strong>in</strong>terpretations<br />
for underspecified representations: for example, [�] is common to all persons, but a bare<br />
[�] feature is <strong>in</strong>terpreted as 3rd person.<br />
(6) Entailment: [speaker] N [participant] N [�]<br />
We adopt <strong>the</strong>se feature specifications, but for convenience we employ a shorthand from here on:<br />
we write [�] as [3], [participant] as [2], and [speaker] as [1], and we refer to each of [3], [2],<br />
and [1] as a segment, mean<strong>in</strong>g ‘feature <strong>in</strong> a hierarchical feature structure’. The representations<br />
correspond<strong>in</strong>g to table 2 (A) <strong>in</strong> this abbreviated system are given <strong>in</strong> table 2 (B). The notation is<br />
convenient because <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation can be transparently read by <strong>in</strong>spect<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> bottommost<br />
segment <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> feature bundle. It is important, however, that <strong>the</strong>se segments not be read as person<br />
categories. For example, [1] <strong>in</strong> table 2 (B) does not refer to <strong>the</strong> category of 1st person; ra<strong>the</strong>r, it<br />
refers to [speaker]. It is only <strong>the</strong> feature structure as a whole that corresponds to a traditional<br />
category like 1st person.<br />
The system assumes limited variation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> selection of features (see Harley and Ritter<br />
2002). Of relevance below will be that some languages differentiate 1st and 2nd persons by<br />
specify<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> latter as [addressee] ra<strong>the</strong>r than by specify<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> former as [speaker], and by<br />
contrast <strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g a bare [participant] as 1st person. This is shown <strong>in</strong> table 2 (C).<br />
In light of this feature-<strong>the</strong>oretic approach to �-specification, match<strong>in</strong>g requirements can be<br />
relativized to specific �-structures by manipulat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> specifications of a probe: <strong>the</strong> more highly<br />
articulated a probe is, <strong>the</strong> more highly specified a DP must be to match all of a probe’s features<br />
(cf. Béjar 2003). (7)–(9) show this for <strong>the</strong> three possible articulations of <strong>the</strong> probe: a flat probe<br />
that is just [u�] ([u3] <strong>in</strong> our notation) <strong>in</strong> (7), a partially articulated probe <strong>in</strong> (8), and a fully<br />
articulated probe <strong>in</strong> (9). For each probe, a DP as highly specified as (or more highly specified<br />
Bejar, S. and Rezac, M. (2003). Person licens<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>the</strong> derivation of PCC effects. In Y. Roberge <br />
and A. T. Perez‐Leroux (Eds.), Romance l<strong>in</strong>guistics: Theory and acquisition (pp. 49‐62). <br />
Anderson’s (1992) [�me, �you].<br />
A<strong>ms</strong>terdam: John Benjam<strong>in</strong>s. <br />
5 The entailment relation between feature segments is <strong>in</strong>tegral to our formalization of <strong>the</strong> operations Match and<br />
Value, as we will show directly. This excludes feature syste<strong>ms</strong> that do not encode <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic entailment relations, like<br />
Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Huang, C.‐T. J. (2006). Long‐Distance B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Asian Languages, The <br />
Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Vol. 3, Ch. 39. London: Blackwell. <br />
Yael Greenberg & Keren Khrizman (Bar Ilan)<br />
Bixlal: A general streng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g operator <strong>in</strong> Hebrew<br />
Basic observations: bixlal is <strong>the</strong> Hebrew translation of <strong>the</strong> NPI at all, as <strong>in</strong> (1). However,<br />
Migron (2003) shows that, unlike at all, bixlal can also appear <strong>in</strong> positive (and o<strong>the</strong>r UE)<br />
constructions (as <strong>in</strong> (2),(4),(5)). In addition, we get different <strong>in</strong>terpretations of bixlal depend<strong>in</strong>g<br />
on whe<strong>the</strong>r it is stressed ((1)-(2)) or not ((3)-(5)):<br />
(1) dani lo gavoha [bixlal]F (“Danny is not tall at all‟)<br />
(2) A: Yosi is tall! B: ve-dani [bixlal]F gavoha (“And Danny is clearly tall / even taller”)<br />
(3)A: Are <strong>the</strong>y married? (B: hem bixlal lo [makirim]F!) (“They don‟t even [know]F each o<strong>the</strong>r”)<br />
(4) A: Do <strong>the</strong>y know each o<strong>the</strong>r? B: hem bixlal [nesuim]F! (“They are even [married]F!”)<br />
(5) A:R<strong>in</strong>a is from Jerusalem B: lo,hi bixlal mi-[Tel Aviv]Contrastive F (“No, she is actually from<br />
[Tel Aviv]Contrastive F")<br />
Analysis Follow<strong>in</strong>g a prelim<strong>in</strong>ary suggestion <strong>in</strong> Migron (2003), we suggest that bixlal p<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicates that p is stronger than its contextually salient alternatives, where its particular<br />
effects depend on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>teraction between (a) <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> streng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g relation (b) <strong>the</strong><br />
nature and placement of focus and (c) <strong>the</strong> polarity of <strong>the</strong> sentence.<br />
We start with (1)-(4), <strong>in</strong> which p is stronger than q iff p entails q and q does not entail p.<br />
When focus is on <strong>the</strong> predicate (as <strong>in</strong> (3)-(4)) we get standard “Roothian” alternatives to p. With<br />
positive and negative cases (as <strong>in</strong> (4), (3) respectively) <strong>the</strong> context has to conta<strong>in</strong> a salient<br />
alternative which is weaker or stronger than p, respectively. In contrast, when bixlal itself is<br />
focused <strong>the</strong> alternatives are different <strong>in</strong>terpretations of p. For example, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> negative (or DE)<br />
(1) p is “Danny is not tall under <strong>the</strong> most liberal precision standard”, and <strong>the</strong> alternatives are of<br />
<strong>the</strong> form “Danny is not tall under a stricter precision standard” (as <strong>in</strong> Krifka 1995)).<br />
Unlike Migron‟s view, we show that bixlal is also felicitous with non-entailment,<br />
evaluative scales, where p is stronger than q s<strong>in</strong>ce it is considered more significant than q, as <strong>in</strong><br />
(6) (cf. Beaver & Clark 2008 on only and Amaral & del Prete (2010) on almost):<br />
(6) moshe zaxa be dekel ha zahav ve yosi bixlal zaxa [ba oskar]F<br />
„Moshe won <strong>the</strong> Golden Palm and Yosi even won <strong>the</strong> [Oscar]F.‟<br />
We discuss two potential mechanis<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of stressed bixlal. (a) <strong>the</strong> stress on <strong>the</strong><br />
operator <strong>in</strong>duces an alternative operator (cf. Beck (2006), Fery (to appear)). This direction is<br />
supported by <strong>the</strong> existence of sentences like (7):<br />
(7) efSar liknot Sam dagim [bixlal]F ve-dgey yam [bifratF]<br />
"You can buy <strong>the</strong>re fish <strong>in</strong> general, and sea fish <strong>in</strong> particular"<br />
But s<strong>in</strong>ce (a) cannot account for <strong>the</strong> range of read<strong>in</strong>gs expressed by bixlal we suggest (b) The<br />
stress <strong>the</strong> operator <strong>in</strong>dicates no stress on any o<strong>the</strong>r element <strong>in</strong> p (cf. Egg & Zimmerman 2011)<br />
and hence no “Roothian” alternatives. But s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> streng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g semantics of bixlal makes<br />
reference to alternatives, we end up with different alternative versions of p. We support (b) with<br />
e.g. <strong>the</strong> behavior of <strong>the</strong> Hebrew stressed stam (Orenste<strong>in</strong> & Greenberg (2010)).<br />
Turn<strong>in</strong>g now to (5), which <strong>in</strong>volves contrastive focus, and <strong>in</strong> which p is nei<strong>the</strong>r stronger<br />
nor weaker than q, we show that <strong>the</strong> presence of bixlal <strong>in</strong> such cases <strong>in</strong>dicates „significant<br />
contrast” between p and its q. E.g. bixlal <strong>in</strong> (5) <strong>in</strong>dicates that be<strong>in</strong>g from Tel Aviv is<br />
significantly <strong>in</strong>compatible with be<strong>in</strong>g from Jerusalem. Thus, for example, <strong>in</strong> a context where this<br />
<strong>in</strong>compatibility is not significant (e.g. <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>ternational forum where each participant has to say<br />
where he or she is from) <strong>the</strong> use of bixlal <strong>in</strong> (5) is odd.
To capture this 'stronger contrast' use we rely on Umbach‟s (2007) idea that contrast as<br />
<strong>in</strong>volves both similarity and dissimilarity, and make use of Morzycki‟s (2011) alternative-based<br />
model for captur<strong>in</strong>g degrees of (im)precision based on similarity, (orig<strong>in</strong>ally developed to<br />
analyze metal<strong>in</strong>guistic comparatives). In this system, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation function is relativized to<br />
contexts and degrees of precision (which are based on degrees of similarity). E.g. [[tel aviv]] d,C<br />
= {fl: f �d,C tel aviv} (l is location}, i.e. <strong>the</strong> set of locations sufficiently similar (similar to a<br />
degree d) <strong>in</strong> C to Tel Aviv, Where d is a real number <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terval [0,1].<br />
Us<strong>in</strong>g this system, we propose that us<strong>in</strong>g standard contrastive focus on an element <strong>in</strong> p <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> presence of an alternative q <strong>in</strong> a context c, <strong>the</strong> speaker <strong>in</strong>dicates that <strong>the</strong> degree of precision<br />
w.r.t p is true is not necessarily 1 (i.e. <strong>the</strong> speaker can consider "He is from [Aviv]Contrastive F even<br />
if Danny lives close to Tel Aviv), but that this degree of precision is higher than <strong>the</strong> degree w.r.t.<br />
q is true (e.g. <strong>in</strong> (5) „Tel Aviv‟ is taken as not „similar enough‟ to „Jerusalem‟), thus mak<strong>in</strong>g q<br />
false <strong>in</strong> c. Crucially, <strong>the</strong> addition of bixlal makes <strong>the</strong> contrast significant. This is captured by<br />
tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> degree of precision w.r.t p is true to be much higher than <strong>the</strong> degree of precision w.r.t.<br />
q is true (so p is considered highly dissimilar from q), Thus, bixlal leads aga<strong>in</strong> to streng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
but not of p (relative to q), but of <strong>the</strong> contrast created by us<strong>in</strong>g p+contrastive focus <strong>in</strong> C. It may<br />
thus be seen here as a streng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g operator on a speech act (cf. Cohen & Krifka (to appear)).<br />
We compare our analysis of bixlal to Anderssen‟s (2006) analysis of <strong>the</strong> similar German<br />
uberhaupt <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of widen<strong>in</strong>g, where, e.g. <strong>the</strong> German counterpart of (8) <strong>in</strong>volves widen<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
<strong>the</strong> comparative class needed for fix<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> standard associated with <strong>the</strong> adjective:<br />
(8) A: Danny is tall for his age B: hu [bixlal]F gavoha („He is tall <strong>in</strong> general‟).<br />
We show, however that bixlal is felicitous also <strong>in</strong> cases where no doma<strong>in</strong> is relevant (e.g. (3-5)),<br />
as well as <strong>in</strong> cases where <strong>the</strong> doma<strong>in</strong> doesn‟t change (9), or even gets narrower (10):<br />
(9) biSvil yalda bat 10, r<strong>in</strong>a lo gvoha [bixlal]F (‘For a ten years old girl, R<strong>in</strong>a is not tall at all’)<br />
(10) ba-balSanut hu tov, ve-be-semantika hu [bixlal]F tov!(‘He is good at l<strong>in</strong>guistics, and he is<br />
even better / very good at semantics’)<br />
This, as well as similar data with multidimensional adjectives (Sassoon 2010), <strong>in</strong>dicates<br />
that widen<strong>in</strong>g is just one of <strong>the</strong> ways <strong>in</strong> which streng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g can be satisfied with bixlal.<br />
Moreover, unlike e.g. any (under Kadmon & Landman 1993, Chierchia (2006), streng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g<br />
see<strong>ms</strong> lexically associated with bixlal and not triggered by <strong>in</strong>formaitvity-based considerations.<br />
This conclusion is fur<strong>the</strong>r supported by <strong>the</strong> compatibility of bixlal with nonentailment scales,<br />
which do not <strong>in</strong>volve <strong>in</strong>formativity. Thus, bixlal can be seen as a lexicalization of an emphatic<br />
operator (perhaps similar to Krifka‟s EMPHATIC ASSERT operator).<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, given Beaver & Clark's (2008) (B&C), model nonstressed bixlal is predicted to<br />
conventionally associate with focus, s<strong>in</strong>ce it can be taken to impose an order<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> set of<br />
alternatives <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> CQ and to <strong>in</strong>dicate that p is stronger than a salient alternative <strong>in</strong> this set.<br />
Empirically, however, unlike rak („only‟) and tamid („always‟), which behave as predicted <strong>in</strong><br />
B&C‟s tests (<strong>the</strong>y pattern as conventionalized and free, respectively), <strong>the</strong> behavior of bixlal is<br />
not consistent with e.g. extraction and reduced pronouns. We exam<strong>in</strong>e potential explanations for<br />
this behavior, and connect it to <strong>the</strong> fact that, unlike rak, bixlal operates on a completely different<br />
scale of alternatives when stressed.
Daniel Gutzmann (Frankfurt) & Kathar<strong>in</strong>a Hartmann (Humboldt)<br />
Dissociat<strong>in</strong>g verum from focus<br />
The term verum focus as it is commonly used refers to a special k<strong>in</strong>d of H*L accent that <strong>in</strong>stead of<br />
focus<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> accent bear<strong>in</strong>g expression, is used to focus a covert operator called verum that provides<br />
<strong>the</strong> truth value/polarity of <strong>the</strong> propositional content of a sentence (Höhle 1992). While this focus<br />
accent <strong>the</strong>sis, or fat as we call this approach henceforth, may be plausible for languages like German<br />
or English, we argue that it is not so if typological more diverse languages are taken <strong>in</strong>to consideration<br />
as well. Instead, we suggest an alternative <strong>the</strong>sis, which we call <strong>the</strong> lexical operator <strong>the</strong>sis or lot.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> fat, verum focus is what <strong>the</strong> term suggests: it is an ord<strong>in</strong>ary focus accent on<br />
<strong>the</strong> covert verum operator (Bür<strong>in</strong>g 2006; Höhle 1992; Zimmermann & Hole 2008). In order for <strong>the</strong><br />
fat to work properly, verum must be present <strong>in</strong> every sentence and <strong>the</strong> accent focusses it. In order<br />
to ensure that, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> absence of a verum accent, verum has no efficient contribution to <strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of a sentence, it has to be rendered as an identity function on truth values/propositions, <strong>the</strong>refore<br />
be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> reverse of negation (Zimmermann & Hole 2008). The fat can be summarized as follows.<br />
(fat) verum focus ∶= covert propositional identity function + focus mark<strong>in</strong>g<br />
In contrast, <strong>the</strong> lot does not assume an omnipresent identity function. Instead, velum is rendered as<br />
a conversational operator (cf. Gutzmann & Castroviejo Miró 2011; Romero & Han 2004) for different<br />
formalizations of this idea) that, by convention, is realized by an accent.<br />
(lot) verum focus ∶= conversational operator realized by accent<br />
In languages like German and English, this happens to be realized by a pitch accent just like focus<br />
is. However, this ra<strong>the</strong>r is a k<strong>in</strong>d of homonymie. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> lot, verum focus is no focus at<br />
all, despite <strong>the</strong> traditional term.<br />
Both <strong>the</strong>ories make different predictions. (i) Means of focus/verum mark<strong>in</strong>g. S<strong>in</strong>ce verum focus<br />
is focus, <strong>the</strong> fat predicts that verum focus is marked by <strong>the</strong> same means as focus, whereas <strong>the</strong> lot<br />
does not predict that <strong>the</strong>re is a necessary overlap between verum and focus mark<strong>in</strong>g strategy. (ii) Cooccurrences<br />
of focus and verum. If a language exhibits multiple foci, <strong>the</strong> FAT predicts that verum and<br />
focus can also co-occur. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> co-occurrence of verum and focus is not to be expected<br />
if a languages prohibits multiple foci. In contrast, <strong>the</strong> LOT does not predict such a correlation and,<br />
ceteris paribus, all four comb<strong>in</strong>ations should be possible (Of course, <strong>the</strong>re could be o<strong>the</strong>r reasons<br />
why one or <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r comb<strong>in</strong>ation is not possible or widespread). (iii) Association with focus. S<strong>in</strong>ce,<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> fat, <strong>the</strong> verum operator is an ord<strong>in</strong>ary focus, it should be possible to have focus<br />
sensitive operators to be associated with verum focus. The lot excludes this possibility.<br />
While it is hard to differentiate between <strong>the</strong> two <strong>the</strong>ses on <strong>the</strong> basis of German or English alone,<br />
tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to account languages that differ from <strong>the</strong> well-studied languages can help to evaluate <strong>the</strong>m<br />
properly. We will present arguments for Chadic languages that favor <strong>the</strong> lot over <strong>the</strong> fat.<br />
Ad (i). In contrast to <strong>in</strong>tonational languages like German or English, that do not exhibit formal<br />
differences <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark<strong>in</strong>g of focus and verum, <strong>the</strong> realization of verum differs considerably from <strong>the</strong><br />
mark<strong>in</strong>g of constituent focus <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chadic languages. In Bura, for <strong>in</strong>stance, subject focus is marked<br />
by <strong>the</strong> subsequent focus marker án (Hartmann & Zimmermann t.a.), cf. (1a). In contrast, verum is<br />
marked by <strong>the</strong> particle ku, as <strong>in</strong> (1b).<br />
(1) a. subject focus: án<br />
[P<strong>in</strong>dar]F án sá mbal.<br />
P. FM dr<strong>in</strong>k beer<br />
“P<strong>in</strong>dar drank beer.”<br />
b. verum: ku<br />
P<strong>in</strong>dár ku sá mbal.<br />
P. VERUM dr<strong>in</strong>k beer<br />
“P<strong>in</strong>dar did dr<strong>in</strong>k beer.”<br />
Chadic languages exhibit quite a variety <strong>in</strong> focus mark<strong>in</strong>g. Crucially, focus mark<strong>in</strong>g formally differs<br />
1
from verum mark<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> all languages we <strong>in</strong>vestigated so far (South Marghi, Bura (Central Chadic),<br />
Hausa, Bole, Ngizim (West Chadic)).<br />
Ad (ii). Like English or German, Bura allows for multiple focus and/or question mark<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
(2) a. Ga masta mi ama ri?<br />
2SG.S buy what where Q<br />
b.<br />
“What did you buy where?”<br />
Iya masta [kwara ni]F [akwa kwasuku]F, iya masta …<br />
1SG.S buy donkey DEF at market 1SG.S buy<br />
“I bought <strong>the</strong> donkey at <strong>the</strong> market, I bought …”<br />
However, contrary to what <strong>the</strong> fat predicts, verum cannot co-occur with wh-questions and focus <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Chadic languages, see Bura aga<strong>in</strong> for illustration.<br />
(3) a. Wán (*ku) sá mbal? *subj wh + verum<br />
b. [P<strong>in</strong>dár]F án (*ku) sá mbal. *subj foc + verum<br />
<strong>in</strong>tended: “P<strong>in</strong>dar did dr<strong>in</strong>k <strong>the</strong> beer.”<br />
While <strong>the</strong> English and German pattern does not conflict with <strong>the</strong> fat, <strong>the</strong> Chadic data is at odds<br />
with it and favors <strong>the</strong> lot. We leave it for fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>vestigation <strong>the</strong> availability of <strong>the</strong> rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g two<br />
configurations.<br />
Ad (iii). Focus sensitive particles are generally impossible <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> presence of <strong>the</strong> verum operator<br />
ku <strong>in</strong> Bura as shown <strong>in</strong> (4) (Hartmann, Jacob & Zimmermann 2008: 35). The focus sensitive particle<br />
daci, which may associate at a distance (Hartmann & Zimmermann 2008), nei<strong>the</strong>r associates with<br />
<strong>the</strong> contrastively focused verb, nor with <strong>the</strong> verum operator itself. This would be unexpected given<br />
<strong>the</strong> fat.<br />
(4) Mwala ní adí tsá ní wá ama tsá (*ku) buhá ní daci.<br />
woman DEF EXIST hit 3SG NEG but 3SG VERUM push 3SG only<br />
“The woman didn’t hit him, but she only pushed him”.<br />
We conclude that both analyses of verum are <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple able to account for <strong>the</strong> observed facts <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>tonational languages. The Chadic languages, however, do not show evidence <strong>in</strong> favour of a focus<br />
accent analysis of verum. Instead <strong>the</strong>y support a lexical analysis of verum as an epistemic conversational<br />
operator, an approach that disassociates verum from <strong>the</strong> notion of focus. If we generalize<br />
<strong>the</strong>se f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g to languages like English or German – which gave rise to <strong>the</strong> focus analysis <strong>in</strong> first place<br />
– <strong>the</strong> accent pattern traditionally associated with verum focus is not licensed by <strong>the</strong> focus status of<br />
<strong>the</strong> covert verum operator. Instead, <strong>the</strong> accent itself is <strong>the</strong> realization of <strong>the</strong> lexical operator. That is,<br />
verum focus is no focus at all.<br />
Bür<strong>in</strong>g, Daniel. 2006. Intonation und Informationsstruktur.<br />
Grammatik und darüber h<strong>in</strong>aus. In Hardarik Blühdorn, Eva<br />
Bre<strong>in</strong>dl & Ulrich Hermann Waßner eds., Text — Verstehen,<br />
144–163. Berl<strong>in</strong> and New York: Walter de Gruyter.<br />
Gutzmann, Daniel & Elena Castroviejo Miró. 2011. The dimensions<br />
of verum. In Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo-<br />
Hofherr eds., Empirical Issues <strong>in</strong> Syntax and Semantics 8,<br />
143–165.<br />
Hartmann, Kathar<strong>in</strong>a, Peggy Jacob & Malte Zimmermann. 2008.<br />
Focus asymmetries <strong>in</strong> Bura. In Sh<strong>in</strong>shiro Ishihara, S. Petrova<br />
& Anne Schwarz eds., Interdiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary Studies on Information<br />
Structure 10, 45–92. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.<br />
2<br />
Hartmann, Kathar<strong>in</strong>a & Malte Zimmermann. 2008. Not only<br />
“only” but “too” too. Alternative sensitive particles <strong>in</strong> Bura.<br />
Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of S<strong>in</strong>n und Bedeutung 12. 196–211.<br />
Hartmann, Kathar<strong>in</strong>a & Malte Zimmermann. t.a. Focus mark<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong> Bura. Semantic uniformity matches syntactic heterogeneity.<br />
Natural Language and L<strong>in</strong>guistic Theory.<br />
Höhle, Tilman N. 1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In<br />
Joachim Jacobs ed., Informationsstruktur und Grammatik,<br />
112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.<br />
Romero, Maribel & Chung-hye Han. 2004. On negative yes/no<br />
questions. <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> and Philosophy 27(5). 609–658.<br />
Zimmermann, Malte & Daniel Hole. 2008. “Predicate focus,<br />
verum focus, verb focus. Similarities and difference”. Talk at<br />
<strong>the</strong> Potsdam-London IS Meet<strong>in</strong>g. 12. 12. 2008.
When Maria is considered to be he. Gender mismatch effects dur<strong>in</strong>g pronoun resolution<br />
Pronoun resolution is an <strong>in</strong>tegral part of sentence comprehension. To accomplish this task, <strong>the</strong><br />
parser uses various sources of <strong>in</strong>formation, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g syntactic, semantic and pragmatic <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
(for an overview see Garnham, 2001). With regard to syntactic <strong>in</strong>formation, we can<br />
dist<strong>in</strong>guish two k<strong>in</strong>ds of constra<strong>in</strong>ts: phrase-structural constra<strong>in</strong>ts which restrict <strong>the</strong> set of candidate<br />
antecedents <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of phrase-structure geometry (e.g., B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g Pr<strong>in</strong>ciples, Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky,<br />
1981) and morpho-syntactic constra<strong>in</strong>ts which restrict <strong>the</strong> set of candidate antecedents <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong><br />
of feature compatibility. The onl<strong>in</strong>e-application of both types of constra<strong>in</strong>ts has been attested <strong>in</strong><br />
prior studies (e.g. Badecker & Straub, 2002; Kennison, 2003; Sturt, 2003; van Gompel & Liversedge,<br />
2003; Kazan<strong>in</strong>a, Lau, Lieberman, Yoshida & Phillips, 2007). The exact tim<strong>in</strong>g, however,<br />
rema<strong>in</strong>s an open issue, and <strong>in</strong> particular <strong>the</strong> question whe<strong>the</strong>r syntactic constra<strong>in</strong>ts constra<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
search for an antecedent from <strong>the</strong> onset on or only later <strong>in</strong> a second step evaluat<strong>in</strong>g candidates.<br />
The present study, which focuses on person, gender and number agreement, addresses two ma<strong>in</strong><br />
questions: (i) Do agreement requirements exclude featurally <strong>in</strong>appropriate NPs immediately or<br />
only at a later stage? (ii) Are <strong>the</strong>re differential effects of person versus gender agreement? The<br />
study makes use of a mismatch paradigm: <strong>the</strong> pronoun is preceded by an NP which matches<br />
or mismatches <strong>the</strong> pronoun <strong>in</strong> agreement features. In contrast to previous studies (e.g., Kennison,<br />
2003), <strong>the</strong> mismatch sentences do not represent <strong>in</strong>coherent discourses lack<strong>in</strong>g a proper<br />
antecedent for <strong>the</strong> pronoun. As shown <strong>in</strong> (1), <strong>the</strong> pronoun is sandwiched between two potential<br />
antecedents – one, <strong>the</strong> ‘distractor’, preced<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> pronoun and ano<strong>the</strong>r one, <strong>the</strong> actual antecedent,<br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g it.<br />
(1)<br />
Als<br />
When<br />
Distractor<br />
Maria<br />
M.<br />
Jana Häussler (Potsdam) & Markus Bader (Frankfurt)<br />
hörte,<br />
heard<br />
dass<br />
that<br />
er<br />
he<br />
abreist,<br />
departs<br />
war<br />
was<br />
der Mann<br />
<strong>the</strong> man<br />
Pronoun Antecedent<br />
schon<br />
already<br />
weg<br />
away<br />
The cataphoric pronoun is conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> a fronted adjunct clause, for which Gordon & Hendrick<br />
(1997) have shown that cataphoric reference is highly acceptable. In <strong>the</strong> experiments <strong>the</strong> fronted<br />
adjunct clause is complex itself consist<strong>in</strong>g of a matrix clause conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> distractor and<br />
an embedded clause conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> pronoun. The actual antecedent occurs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> clause<br />
<strong>the</strong>reafter.<br />
We present two self-paced read<strong>in</strong>g experiments that <strong>in</strong>vestigate sentences follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> schema<br />
<strong>in</strong> (1). Both experiments vary <strong>the</strong> feature specifications of <strong>the</strong> distractor (1st person pronoun, fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e<br />
proper name or mascul<strong>in</strong>e proper name). Experiment 1 fur<strong>the</strong>rmore varies <strong>the</strong> pronoun,<br />
which was ei<strong>the</strong>r er (‘he’) or sie (‘she’). Experiment 2 concentrates on <strong>the</strong> number ambiguous<br />
pronoun sie (‘she/<strong>the</strong>y’) and varies its number specification signaled by subject-verb agreement<br />
on <strong>the</strong> correspond<strong>in</strong>g verb, cf. (2).<br />
(2) Als Maria erfuhr, . . . (‘When Maria heard’)<br />
a. dass sie abreisen muss, hatte die Tante die Stadt längst verlassen.<br />
that she depart must.SG had.SG <strong>the</strong> aunt <strong>the</strong> town already left<br />
‘When Maria heard that she had to depart <strong>the</strong> aunt had already left <strong>the</strong> town.’<br />
b. dass sie abreisen müssen, hatten die Tanten die Stadt längst verlassen.<br />
that <strong>the</strong>y depart must.PL had.PL <strong>the</strong> aunts <strong>the</strong> town already left<br />
‘When Maria heard that <strong>the</strong>y had to depart <strong>the</strong> aunts had already left <strong>the</strong> town.’<br />
1
<strong>Read<strong>in</strong>g</strong> times <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> pronoun region are prolonged when pronoun and distratcor mismatch <strong>in</strong><br />
gender. In Experiment 1, <strong>the</strong> effect starts on <strong>the</strong> pronoun itself and lasts through <strong>the</strong> whole<br />
embedded clause; <strong>in</strong> Experiment 2, <strong>the</strong> effect is slightly delayed and starts only immediately<br />
after <strong>the</strong> pronoun. We <strong>in</strong>terpret this mismatch penalty as an <strong>in</strong>dication for <strong>the</strong> parser’s attempt to<br />
l<strong>in</strong>k <strong>the</strong> pronoun to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>appropriate distractor. Despite <strong>the</strong> feature <strong>in</strong>compatibility and although<br />
<strong>the</strong> pronoun occurs <strong>in</strong> a configuration where it could well be (and <strong>in</strong> fact is) a cataphor, <strong>the</strong> parser<br />
yields to <strong>the</strong> pressure of establish<strong>in</strong>g an antecedent as soon as possible. In a way, this pressure<br />
overrules <strong>the</strong> agreement constra<strong>in</strong>t and lets <strong>the</strong> parser ignore <strong>the</strong> alternative offered by b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
constra<strong>in</strong>ts, namely establish<strong>in</strong>g a cataphoric b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g relation. At <strong>the</strong> same time, <strong>the</strong> agreement<br />
violation is noticed as reflected <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> prolonged read<strong>in</strong>g times. Hence, <strong>the</strong> agreement constra<strong>in</strong>t<br />
is active but it does not guide <strong>the</strong> parser’s first choice. Taken toge<strong>the</strong>r, this argues for a twostep<br />
model: first a referential l<strong>in</strong>k is established and only <strong>in</strong> a second step its appropriateness<br />
is evaluated. However, gender and person features are treated differently. Notably, a mismatch<br />
effect occurs only <strong>in</strong> case of a gender mismatch but not with a person conflict. Apparently,<br />
<strong>the</strong> first-person pronoun distractor is not considered a potential antecedent for <strong>the</strong> third-person<br />
pronoun. We conclude that person features restrict <strong>the</strong> set of candidate antecedents immediately.<br />
We will discuss our f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> context of <strong>the</strong> feature delay hypo<strong>the</strong>sis (van Gompel &<br />
Liversedge, 2003) and <strong>the</strong> active search hypo<strong>the</strong>sis (Kazan<strong>in</strong>a et al., 2007).<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, Experiment 2 provides evidence for <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis that <strong>the</strong> parser’s association<br />
with a once established antecedent is really strong. Remember that <strong>the</strong> pronoun sie is number<br />
ambiguous. Disambiguation is achieved by subject-verb agreement with <strong>the</strong> correspond<strong>in</strong>g verb<br />
(muss/müssen <strong>in</strong> (2)). While read<strong>in</strong>g times for this verb do not show any difference between<br />
s<strong>in</strong>gular and plural <strong>in</strong> sentences with a 1st-person distractor, disambiguation towards plural<br />
causes a process<strong>in</strong>g disruption <strong>in</strong> sentences with a fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e distractor. To our view this suggests<br />
that just adjust<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> pronoun’s number feature is basically costless whereas break<strong>in</strong>g up <strong>the</strong><br />
l<strong>in</strong>k to a seem<strong>in</strong>g antecedent is particularly hard.<br />
Literatur<br />
Badecker, W. & Straub, K. (2002). The process<strong>in</strong>g role of structural constra<strong>in</strong>ts on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology 28, 748–769.<br />
Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g. Dordrecht: Foris.<br />
Garnham, A. (2001). Mental models and <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation of anaphora. Hove: Psychology<br />
Press.<br />
Gordon, P. C. & Hendrick, R. (1997). Intuitive knowledge of l<strong>in</strong>guistic co-reference. Cognition<br />
62, 325–370.<br />
Kazan<strong>in</strong>a, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M. & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of<br />
syntactic constra<strong>in</strong>ts on <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language<br />
56, 384–409.<br />
Kennison, S. M. (2003). Comprehend<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> pronouns her, him, and his: Implications for <strong>the</strong>ories<br />
of referential process<strong>in</strong>g. Journal of Memory and Language 49, 335–352.<br />
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of <strong>the</strong> application of b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g constra<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> reference resolution.<br />
Journal of Memory and Language 48, 542–562.<br />
van Gompel, R. P. & Liversedge, S. P. (2003). The <strong>in</strong>fluence of morphological <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology 29, 128–139.<br />
2
Claire Halpert (MIT)<br />
Structural case and <strong>the</strong> nature of vP <strong>in</strong> Zulu<br />
Recent work has demonstrated that <strong>in</strong> Icelandic and Faroese, a nom<strong>in</strong>al can move around a head<br />
before <strong>the</strong> head probes (Holmberg and Hroársdóttir 2004; Sigur�sson and Holmberg 2008, Asar<strong>in</strong>a<br />
2011). As a result of this order of movement and prob<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> trace of <strong>the</strong> moved nom<strong>in</strong>al does<br />
not act as an <strong>in</strong>tervener. I show that we f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong>dependent evidence for this type of order<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> two<br />
syntactic puzzles <strong>in</strong> Zulu: (1) <strong>the</strong> ‘conjo<strong>in</strong>t/disjo<strong>in</strong>t’ alternation (van der Spuy 1993; Buell 2005)<br />
and (2) <strong>the</strong> distribution of augmentless nom<strong>in</strong>als (Buell 2011). I argue for a unified account of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
two puzzles, draw<strong>in</strong>g on recent work that argues for <strong>the</strong> ability of syntactic operations to be countercyclic<br />
and asymmetrical without yield<strong>in</strong>g a crash (Ndayiragije 1999, Legate 2005, Prem<strong>in</strong>ger 2009,<br />
2010, 2011). This analysis also suggests that nom<strong>in</strong>als <strong>in</strong> Zulu are subject to <strong>the</strong> Case Filter (contra<br />
Harford Perez 1985, Diercks to appear, a. o. on <strong>the</strong> lack of case effects <strong>in</strong> Bantu).<br />
Puzzle 1: Conjo<strong>in</strong>t/disjo<strong>in</strong>t. In certa<strong>in</strong> tenses, Zulu verbs alternate between a ‘conjo<strong>in</strong>t’ form<br />
(marked by Ø <strong>in</strong> present) and a ‘disjo<strong>in</strong>t’ form (marked by -ya- <strong>in</strong> present). This alternation is<br />
syntactically conditioned: <strong>the</strong> conjo<strong>in</strong>t form is used if vP conta<strong>in</strong>s overt material o<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong><br />
verb and <strong>the</strong> disjo<strong>in</strong>t form is used if not (van der Spuy 1993; Buell 2005, 2006):<br />
(1) uSipho u- *(ya)- dla (2) ku- (*ya)- dla uSipho (3) uSipho u- (*ya)- dla iqanda<br />
1Sipho 1s- *(YA)- eat 17s- (*YA)- eat 1Sipho 1Sipho 1s- (*YA)- eat 5egg<br />
‘Sipho is eat<strong>in</strong>g.’<br />
‘SIPHO’s eat<strong>in</strong>g.’<br />
‘Sipho is eat<strong>in</strong>g an egg.’<br />
Puzzle 2: Augmentless nom<strong>in</strong>al distribution. Nom<strong>in</strong>als <strong>in</strong> Zulu are typically marked with an<br />
<strong>in</strong>itial vowel (<strong>the</strong> ‘augment’) that reflects noun class. In a subset of environments that permit<br />
augmented nom<strong>in</strong>als, this vowel may be omitted. The omission of <strong>the</strong> augment is subject to various<br />
conditions (see Buell 2011), but <strong>the</strong> ones I focus on here are structural: augmentless nom<strong>in</strong>als must<br />
appear <strong>in</strong>side vP, and are limited to certa<strong>in</strong> configurations with<strong>in</strong> vP.<br />
(4) a. SVO with augmentless object<br />
c. �VSO +augment -augment<br />
umuntu a- ka-dli qanda<br />
a- ku-dli muntu iqanda<br />
1person NEG1Seat NEG egg<br />
NEG17Seat NEG 1person 5egg<br />
‘A/<strong>the</strong> person didn’t eat any egg.’<br />
‘NOBODY is eat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>/an/any egg.’<br />
b. *VSO -augment -augment<br />
d. *VSO +augment -augment<br />
*a-ku-dl-i muntu qanda<br />
a- ku-dli umuntu qanda<br />
NEG-17S-eat-NEG 1person egg<br />
NEG17Seat NEG 1person 5egg<br />
Solution. The analysis depends on three components–failure to agree, asymmetrical case relationships,<br />
and <strong>the</strong> ability of an argument to move around a head before that head probes.<br />
Recent work by Prem<strong>in</strong>ger (2009, 2010, 2011) suggests that it is not obligatory for a prob<strong>in</strong>g<br />
head to undergo Agreement <strong>in</strong> order for a derivation to converge. Prem<strong>in</strong>ger argues, however, that<br />
Agree itself is not optional: heads probe obligatorily and so will always Agree if a goal is present.<br />
If a probe fails to f<strong>in</strong>d a goal, <strong>the</strong> derivation will still converge as long as prob<strong>in</strong>g was attempted.<br />
We can understand <strong>the</strong> Zulu conjo<strong>in</strong>t/disjo<strong>in</strong>t pattern <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of Prem<strong>in</strong>ger’s proposal: <strong>the</strong> head<br />
responsible for <strong>the</strong> alternation is an (unrelativized) probe that searches <strong>the</strong> vP for an XP to agree<br />
with. When <strong>the</strong> vP is empty, and thus lacks a goal, <strong>the</strong> derivation still converges, as predicted by<br />
Prem<strong>in</strong>ger. In Zulu we see a morphological marker of this failure: where Agree does not occur, <strong>the</strong><br />
prob<strong>in</strong>g head spells out as -ya-, ra<strong>the</strong>r than Ø.<br />
I propose that augmented nom<strong>in</strong>als, which exhibit no structural restrictions, are <strong>in</strong>herently cased<br />
<strong>in</strong> Zulu. Augmentless nom<strong>in</strong>als, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, do display structural restrictions <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e with<br />
classic case effects. I argue that this structurally-restricted distribution is evidence for structural<br />
case assignment with<strong>in</strong> vP. In l<strong>in</strong>e with Ndayiragije (1999), <strong>the</strong> case probe can check even DPs that<br />
1
don’t need case, such as augmented nom<strong>in</strong>als. However, while for Ndayiragije Bantu nom<strong>in</strong>als<br />
generally don’t require case, and thus <strong>the</strong> case prob<strong>in</strong>g is always driven by <strong>the</strong> prob<strong>in</strong>g head <strong>in</strong><br />
Bantu languages, I argue that augmentless nom<strong>in</strong>als do require case <strong>in</strong> Zulu and must be checked<br />
to prevent a crash. The result of <strong>the</strong> possibility for asymmetrical probe-goal relationships is <strong>the</strong><br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g: <strong>the</strong> case-licen<strong>in</strong>g head does not specifically probe for an augmentless nom<strong>in</strong>al and will<br />
not cause a crash regardless of whe<strong>the</strong>r it f<strong>in</strong>ds any XP to check. Augmentless nom<strong>in</strong>als that are<br />
not checked, however, do cause a crash and thus only surface <strong>in</strong> particular configurations.<br />
With <strong>the</strong>se concepts <strong>in</strong> place, we can understand <strong>the</strong> mechanism driv<strong>in</strong>g conjo<strong>in</strong>t/disjo<strong>in</strong>t alternations<br />
and augmentless nom<strong>in</strong>al distribution. Both phenomena depend on a head, L, that is<br />
immediately above vP (because vP-<strong>in</strong>ternal subjects are <strong>in</strong> its prob<strong>in</strong>g doma<strong>in</strong>) and that probes for<br />
<strong>the</strong> highest XP. We can understand <strong>the</strong> patterns <strong>in</strong> (4) <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of this structure: <strong>the</strong> licens<strong>in</strong>g head<br />
probes vP and checks <strong>the</strong> highest XP, which is <strong>the</strong> object <strong>in</strong> (4a) and <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>in</strong> (4b,c,d). In<br />
(4a), <strong>the</strong> object is augmentless but is licensed through Agree with <strong>the</strong> functional head. Similarly,<br />
<strong>the</strong> augmentless subjects <strong>in</strong> (4b,c) Agree with and are licensed by <strong>the</strong> head. In (4c,d) <strong>the</strong> construction<br />
is ungrammatical because of <strong>the</strong> presence of a lower augmentless nom<strong>in</strong>al: <strong>the</strong> object. Here,<br />
<strong>the</strong> subject <strong>in</strong>tervenes and prevents <strong>the</strong> object from be<strong>in</strong>g licensed, caus<strong>in</strong>g a crash. As discussed<br />
above, all of <strong>the</strong> for<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong> (4) use conjo<strong>in</strong>t morphology because <strong>the</strong> licens<strong>in</strong>g head is able to Agree.<br />
In cases where noth<strong>in</strong>g appears <strong>in</strong> vP, <strong>the</strong> licens<strong>in</strong>g head fails to Agree, but <strong>the</strong> derivation still<br />
converges, with <strong>the</strong> head spell<strong>in</strong>g out as -ya-. The proposed structure is schematized below <strong>in</strong> (5):<br />
(5) LP<br />
L(icenser) vP<br />
S<br />
augment<br />
optional<br />
v o VP<br />
V O<br />
augment<br />
necessary<br />
(6) LP<br />
L<br />
ya<br />
tS<br />
vP<br />
v o VP<br />
V<br />
prob<strong>in</strong>g<br />
fails!<br />
The tim<strong>in</strong>g of operations. Both puzzles described here are sensitive to syntactic movement. The<br />
head L o treats constructions <strong>in</strong> which elements move out of vP dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> derivation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> same<br />
way as constructions <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> vP is empty throughout. This is a familiar pattern from Icelandic<br />
and Faroese, where dative experiencers are able to move around a number probe before it probes<br />
(Holmberg & Hróarsdóttir 2004, a.o.). In Icelandic, however, we f<strong>in</strong>d optionality <strong>in</strong> agreement,<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicative of both orders of movement and prob<strong>in</strong>g. If operations are freely ordered with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
phase (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2005), this is an expected result. In Zulu, however, we only see <strong>the</strong> counter-cyclic<br />
movement-before-prob<strong>in</strong>g order. I propose that this pattern is due to <strong>the</strong> Activity Condition: nom<strong>in</strong>als<br />
<strong>in</strong> Zulu cannot undergo A movement after enter<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to a case-check<strong>in</strong>g relationship with<br />
L (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2000, 2001). While recent work has suggested that Bantu languages lack both case<br />
and Activity effects <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> TP doma<strong>in</strong> (Carstens 2011, Carstens and Diercks to appear, Diercks to<br />
appear), I argue that we f<strong>in</strong>d both case and Activity at work <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> lower part of <strong>the</strong> clause <strong>in</strong> Zulu.<br />
Selected References: Buell, L. 2005. Issues <strong>in</strong> Zulu Morphosyntax. PhD diss. Carstens, V. 2011.<br />
Hyperactivity and Hyperagreement <strong>in</strong> Bantu. L<strong>in</strong>gua. Diercks, M. to appear. Parameteriz<strong>in</strong>g case<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory: evidence from Bantu. Syntax. Holmberg, A. & T. Hroársdóttir 2004. Agreement and<br />
movement <strong>in</strong> Icelandic rais<strong>in</strong>g constructions. L<strong>in</strong>gua. Ndayiragije, J. 1999. Check<strong>in</strong>g economy.<br />
LI. Prem<strong>in</strong>ger, O. 2009. Break<strong>in</strong>g agreements: dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g agreement and clitic doubl<strong>in</strong>g by<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir failures. LI. Van der Spuy, A. 1993. Dislocated noun phrases <strong>in</strong> Nguni. L<strong>in</strong>gua.<br />
2
Bart Hollebrandse, Petra Hendriks & Jacolien van Rij (Gron<strong>in</strong>gen)<br />
Eye gaze patterns reveal subtle discourse effects on object pronoun resolution<br />
Discourse coherence plays a major role <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g sentences. This paper shows<br />
that adults are sensitive to very subtle <strong>in</strong>formation from discourse. To do this, we use<br />
<strong>the</strong> well-known phenomenon of Delayed Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple B Effect (Chien and Wexler, 1990;<br />
Koster, 1993) and show that children are capable of circumvent<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> DPBE on <strong>the</strong><br />
basis of subtle discourse <strong>in</strong>formation.<br />
Issue Spenader, Smits & Hendriks (2009) found that coherent discourse helps <strong>the</strong><br />
DPBE-child to f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> correct referent for a pronoun. The discourse-<strong>in</strong>troduction of a<br />
s<strong>in</strong>gle referent made <strong>the</strong> effect disappear. By add<strong>in</strong>g a condition <strong>in</strong> which we varied<br />
<strong>the</strong> order of referents as potentials antecedents for object pronouns we are zoom<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>to subtle discourse prom<strong>in</strong>ence effects such as first-mention bias (cf subject<br />
pronouns <strong>in</strong> Arnold, Eisenband, Brown-Schmidt & Trueswell (2000)).<br />
Our Study We have not only collected accuracy as a measure, but also eye-gaze.<br />
It is especially eye-gaze which can give us subtle onl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>sights <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> resolution of<br />
pronouns and <strong>the</strong> discourse effects on it. We tested <strong>the</strong> Agent–Patient order, <strong>the</strong> order<br />
Patient-Agent and <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>troduction of a s<strong>in</strong>gle referent (1)-(3).<br />
(1) Double Topic Agent-Patient Condition<br />
Hier zie je een olifant en een d<strong>in</strong>o. De olifant heeft hem met een hamer geslagen.<br />
here see you an elephant and a d<strong>in</strong>osaur. The elephant has him with a hammer hit<br />
“Here you see an elephant and a d<strong>in</strong>osaur. The elephant has hit him with a<br />
hammer.”<br />
(2) S<strong>in</strong>gle Topic Condition<br />
Hier zie je een d<strong>in</strong>o. De olifant heeft hem met een hamer geslagen.<br />
here see you a d<strong>in</strong>osaur. The elephant has him with a hammer hit<br />
“Here you see a d<strong>in</strong>osaur. The elephant has hit him with a hammer.”<br />
(3) Double Topic Patient-Agent Condition<br />
Hier zie je een d<strong>in</strong>o en een olifant. De olifant heeft hem met een hamer geslagen.<br />
here see you a d<strong>in</strong>oaur and an elephant. The elephant has him with a hammer hit<br />
“Here you see a d<strong>in</strong>osaur and an elephant. The elephant has hit him with a<br />
hammer.”<br />
Participants and Design 33 Dutch children between <strong>the</strong> ages 4;2 and 6;5 (mean=<br />
5;4) were tested on <strong>the</strong> conditions (1) - (3), as well as 37 adults, us<strong>in</strong>g a Picture-<br />
Verification task. Each participant saw 48 ite<strong>ms</strong> (16 ite<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g two referents,<br />
divided equally <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> two orders and test<strong>in</strong>g pronouns and reflexives; 16 ite<strong>ms</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g s<strong>in</strong>gle referents, test<strong>in</strong>g pronouns and reflexives; 16 fillers). All ite<strong>ms</strong><br />
were tested <strong>in</strong> matched and mismatched cases, but participants saw only one variant<br />
of each item.<br />
Results The data was analyzed by compar<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>ear mixed-effects models<br />
(<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> maximum random effects structure supported by <strong>the</strong> data) to test <strong>the</strong><br />
effects of Context, Match and Group. In addition to a significant ma<strong>in</strong> effect of Match<br />
(χ2()=), show<strong>in</strong>g that children are more likely to say yes than no, we found a marg<strong>in</strong>al<br />
effect of <strong>in</strong>troduction of reference (χ2(1)= 18.621; p < .001) on children’s off-l<strong>in</strong>e<br />
performance (yes/no-answers) on <strong>the</strong> task: children perform more adult-like <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
S<strong>in</strong>gle Topic condition than <strong>the</strong> Agent-Patient Condition (β=0.860, SE=0.376, zvalue=2.288,<br />
p=.022), and perform better <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Patient-Agent Condition than <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Agent-Patient Condition (β=-0831, SE=0.476, z-value=-1.747, p=.081). This shows<br />
that children are <strong>in</strong>deed capable of resolv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> DPBE by use of discourse clues.
Adults show ceil<strong>in</strong>g performance <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> offl<strong>in</strong>e answers. However, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir gazebehavior,<br />
adults show an effect of Context (see Figure 1). Adults look more at <strong>the</strong><br />
patient <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Agent-Patient order (1) than <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two referent <strong>in</strong>troductions,<br />
whereas children do not show differences <strong>in</strong> gaze behavior between <strong>the</strong> different<br />
conditions. In <strong>the</strong> second 500 <strong>ms</strong> b<strong>in</strong> (500-100 <strong>ms</strong> from <strong>the</strong> onset of <strong>the</strong> anaphor) of<br />
<strong>the</strong> mismatch-ite<strong>ms</strong> we found a marg<strong>in</strong>al significant <strong>in</strong>teraction of Context and<br />
AgeGroup (χ2(2)=5.40; p=.067).<br />
Conclusions Our f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs support two important po<strong>in</strong>ts: 1. Children are sensitive<br />
to very subtle effects of discourse prom<strong>in</strong>ence such as topicality and <strong>the</strong> first mention<br />
bias. This is shown <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir offl<strong>in</strong>e data, but data of younger children alludes to onl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
differences as well. 2. The adult onl<strong>in</strong>e data clearly shows a different gaze pattern for<br />
<strong>the</strong> Agent-Patient <strong>in</strong>troduction than for <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r ones. This onl<strong>in</strong>e f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g supports<br />
<strong>the</strong> idea that different referent <strong>in</strong>troductions, <strong>the</strong> Agent-Patient order, have an effect<br />
on pronoun resolution.<br />
patient<br />
equal<br />
agent<br />
patient<br />
equal<br />
agent<br />
Adults<br />
0 500 1000 1500<br />
Children<br />
0 500 1000 1500<br />
Figure 1: Eye gaze for pronoun resolution <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> mismatched case (0 <strong>in</strong>dicates onset<br />
of <strong>the</strong> pronoun).<br />
Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S. & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The<br />
rapid use of gender <strong>in</strong>formation: evidence of <strong>the</strong> time course of pronoun<br />
resolution from eyetrack<strong>in</strong>g. Cognition, 76, B13–B26.<br />
Chien, Y. C., & Wexler, K. (1990). Children's Knowledge of Locality Conditions <strong>in</strong><br />
B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g as Evidence for <strong>the</strong> Modularity of Syntax and Pragmatics. Language<br />
Acquisition, 1(3), 225-295.<br />
Koster, C. (1993). Errors <strong>in</strong> anaphora acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht<br />
University, Utrecht, The Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands.<br />
Spenader, J., Smits, E. J., & Hendriks, P. (2009). Coherent discourse solves <strong>the</strong><br />
Pronoun Interpretation Problem. Journal of Child Language, 36(1), 23-52.<br />
CAP<br />
CPA<br />
S<br />
CAP<br />
CPA<br />
S
Elim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g rightward movement: Extraposition as flexible l<strong>in</strong>earisation of adjuncts<br />
Traces were <strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>in</strong>to syntactic <strong>the</strong>ory to serve two purposes: <strong>the</strong>y allowed displaced<br />
elements to be construed as semantically related to <strong>the</strong>ir pre-movement positions, and allowed<br />
constra<strong>in</strong>ts on <strong>the</strong> locality of movement to be stated. These concerns perta<strong>in</strong> not only to <strong>the</strong><br />
more canonical <strong>in</strong>stances of leftward movement, but also to apparent <strong>in</strong>stances of rightward<br />
movement: <strong>the</strong> relative clause must be <strong>in</strong>terpreted as a modifier of ‘book’ <strong>in</strong> (1), and must be<br />
ruled to have violated some constra<strong>in</strong>t on locality <strong>in</strong> (2).<br />
(1) A book appeared [which was written by Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky]<br />
(2) * It was believed [that a book appeared] by everybody [which was written by Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky]<br />
The locality constra<strong>in</strong>ts on rightward movement have long been known to differ from those on<br />
leftward movement, rais<strong>in</strong>g significant <strong>the</strong>oretical issues: (i) why should <strong>the</strong>re be two k<strong>in</strong>ds of<br />
movement? and (ii) why should <strong>the</strong> two k<strong>in</strong>ds correlate so precisely with <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>ear direction<br />
of <strong>the</strong> displacement? We propose an account of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretive and locality properties of this<br />
extraposition phenomenon that does not <strong>in</strong>volve movement or traces. We <strong>in</strong>stead rely only on<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dependently-motivated derivational flexibility <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>troduction of adjuncts proposed by<br />
Hunter (2010), <strong>the</strong>reby unify<strong>in</strong>g extraposition of adjuncts with <strong>the</strong> well-known flexibility <strong>in</strong> (3)<br />
and with <strong>the</strong> anti-reconstruction properties of adjuncts discussed by Lebeaux (1988) <strong>in</strong> (4).<br />
(3) a. Read a book quietly (is what) John did (‘quietly’ <strong>in</strong>terpreted and l<strong>in</strong>earised as part of VP)<br />
b. Read a book (is what) John did quietly (‘quietly’ <strong>in</strong>terpreted but not l<strong>in</strong>earised as part of VP)<br />
(4) a. * Which argument that Johni is a genius did hei believe?<br />
b. Which argument that Johni made did hei believe?<br />
A central assumption of Hunter’s analysis is that each maximal projection is a spellout doma<strong>in</strong>.<br />
Hence a derivation is naturally partitioned <strong>in</strong>to “chunks”. Dur<strong>in</strong>g each chunk C, <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
a s<strong>in</strong>gle syntactic head X such that every merge step <strong>in</strong> C establishes ei<strong>the</strong>r a complement or<br />
a specifier of X. At <strong>the</strong> end of this chunk, spellout applies and produces an atomic word-like<br />
object, lack<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>ternal syntax but with <strong>the</strong> semantics, phonology, and formal features of <strong>the</strong> derivedXP,<br />
which can participate <strong>in</strong> a subsequent chunk of <strong>the</strong> derivation. Under this conception,<br />
“adjunction” of an elementAtakes place whenAis <strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> derivational workspace<br />
but never merged. As before, semantic <strong>in</strong>terpretation and l<strong>in</strong>earization of A take place at <strong>the</strong><br />
po<strong>in</strong>t of spellout, but, because of <strong>the</strong> absence of merger, <strong>the</strong>se processes proceed without <strong>the</strong><br />
benefit of <strong>the</strong> configurational guidance that governs <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation and l<strong>in</strong>earization of arguments,<br />
e.g. <strong>the</strong> UTAH and <strong>the</strong> LCA. Hunter (2010) argues that this derivational dichotomy<br />
is supported by <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretive and order<strong>in</strong>g flexibility found <strong>in</strong> adjuncts but not arguments.<br />
Typically, adjunction ofAtoXP takes place dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> chunk where its semantic associateXP<br />
is constructed. This is what takes place <strong>in</strong> (3a): ‘quietly’ is <strong>in</strong>troduced dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> derivational<br />
chunk of <strong>the</strong> VP it modifies and is spelled out at <strong>the</strong> conclusion of this chunk, concatenat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
‘quietly’ at <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> VP. This allows front<strong>in</strong>g of ‘read a book quietly’.<br />
Note though that because adjunction<br />
of A to XP does not require<br />
reference to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal syntax of<br />
XP, <strong>the</strong>re is an alternative: A can<br />
be <strong>in</strong>troduced and spelled out dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> next higher chunk, say with head<br />
Y . Because spellout has access not<br />
Tim Hunter & Robert Frank (Yale)<br />
John<br />
VP<br />
read [a book]DP<br />
TP<br />
quietly<br />
quietly<br />
T [read a book]VP<br />
spellout<br />
−−−−−−→ read a book quietly<br />
spellout<br />
−−−−−−→ John read a book quietly<br />
only to Y , but also to <strong>the</strong> units merged as Y ’s complement and specifier, spellout can <strong>in</strong>terpret<br />
A as semantically modify<strong>in</strong>g one of <strong>the</strong>se units, say XP; with regard to l<strong>in</strong>earisation, we assume<br />
that <strong>the</strong>re are two options: ei<strong>the</strong>r (i) <strong>the</strong> adjunct A may be concatenated to <strong>the</strong> edge of<br />
its hostXP, which reproduces <strong>the</strong> effects of Lebeaux’s (1988) counter-cyclic adjunction, or (ii)<br />
<strong>the</strong> adjunct A may be concatenated to <strong>the</strong> edge of <strong>the</strong> entire Y P chunk’s output, an operation<br />
we will call “outer adjunction”. Outer adjunction is responsible for (3b): ‘quietly’ is <strong>in</strong>troduced<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g T’s chunk, <strong>in</strong>terpreted at spellout as semantically modify<strong>in</strong>g T’s complement, namely
VP, but concatenated to <strong>the</strong> edge of TP. Because spellout applied to VP dur<strong>in</strong>g a prior chunk, it<br />
functions as a unit and can be subsequently fronted without <strong>the</strong> adjunct ‘quietly’.<br />
On this account, extraposition amounts to <strong>the</strong> outer<br />
adjunction of a DP modifier at <strong>the</strong> phrase immediately<br />
TP who knew his bro<strong>the</strong>r<br />
conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> host, i.e. VP for objects, or TP for subjects.<br />
This expla<strong>in</strong>s <strong>the</strong> strict locality properties observed<br />
by Balt<strong>in</strong> (1981): material extraposed from sub-<br />
some<br />
would [ride with Fred]VP<br />
ject position can (and must) be stranded under VP front<strong>in</strong>g/ellipsis, as shown <strong>in</strong> (5), whereas<br />
material extraposed from object position cannot be, as shown <strong>in</strong> (6).<br />
(5) [Some ] would ride with Fred [who knew his bro<strong>the</strong>r].<br />
a. Ride with Fred, some would who knew his bro<strong>the</strong>r. (RC stranded by front<strong>in</strong>g)<br />
b. * Ride with Fred who knew his bro<strong>the</strong>r, some would. (RC brought along by front<strong>in</strong>g)<br />
(6) John said that he would call [people ] up [who are from Boston], and . . .<br />
a. * . . . call people up he did who are from Boston. (RC stranded by front<strong>in</strong>g)<br />
b. . . . call people up who are from Boston he did. (RC brought along by front<strong>in</strong>g)<br />
As a result, elements extraposed from objects<br />
will <strong>in</strong> general precede those extraposed from sub-<br />
CP which were on <strong>the</strong> table<br />
jects; but if <strong>the</strong> object undergoes movement to a<br />
position higher than <strong>the</strong> subject, this gives rise to<br />
an additional derivational option for late adjunc-<br />
[which books]DP<br />
did [someone pick up . . . ]TP<br />
tion. The adjunct can be <strong>in</strong>troduced at <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t where <strong>the</strong> object merges <strong>in</strong>to a higher specifier,<br />
giv<strong>in</strong>g rise to <strong>the</strong> possibility of <strong>the</strong> object modifier appear<strong>in</strong>g at <strong>the</strong> far right.<br />
(7) a. ? Which book did someone pick up [which was on <strong>the</strong> table] [who didn’t really<br />
want to]?<br />
b. Which book did someone pick up [who didn’t really want to] [which was on <strong>the</strong><br />
table]?<br />
Fox and Nissenbaum (1999) note that extraposition obviates Condition C effects, but strik<strong>in</strong>gly,<br />
this obviation is restricted to adjuncts; see (8). This recalls <strong>the</strong> pattern <strong>in</strong> (4) discussed<br />
by Lebeaux. S<strong>in</strong>ce our outer adjunction and counter-cyclic adjunction are <strong>in</strong>stances of <strong>the</strong> same<br />
mechanism (differ<strong>in</strong>g only <strong>in</strong> questions of l<strong>in</strong>earisation), this is as we would expect.<br />
(8) a. * I gave himi an argument [that supports Johni’s <strong>the</strong>ory] yesterday<br />
b. I gave himi an argument yesterday [that supports Johni’s <strong>the</strong>ory]<br />
c. * I gave him an argument yesterday [that this sentence supports John’s <strong>the</strong>ory]<br />
This <strong>in</strong>teracts <strong>in</strong> just <strong>the</strong> expected way with possibility of outer adjunction to non-base positions<br />
as <strong>in</strong> (7): extraposition from moved objects can obviate Condition C effects even <strong>in</strong> cases<br />
<strong>in</strong>duced by a subject b<strong>in</strong>der, as shown <strong>in</strong> (9) (from Culicover and Rochemont (1990)).<br />
(9) a. * Hei <strong>in</strong>vited several girls to <strong>the</strong> party that Johni dated <strong>in</strong> high school.<br />
b. How many girls did hei <strong>in</strong>vite to <strong>the</strong> party that Johni dated <strong>in</strong> high school.<br />
However, our implementation of counter-cyclic adjunction differs from Lebeaux’s <strong>in</strong> a crucial<br />
respect: it correctly predicts that anti-reconstruction should be sensitive to <strong>the</strong> depth of<br />
embedd<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a manner similar to extraposition, as <strong>in</strong> (10) (Landau, 2007).<br />
(10) a. Food that Maryi cooks, shei knows I would never eat.<br />
b. * Eat food that Maryi cooks, shei knows I never would. (cf. (6a))<br />
Note f<strong>in</strong>ally that we have considered only right-adjuncts; <strong>the</strong>re should <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple be similar<br />
phenomena with left-adjuncts. We will suggest that floated quantifiers constitute such a case.<br />
Balt<strong>in</strong>, M. (1981). Strict bound<strong>in</strong>g. In Baker, C. L. and McCarthy, J., editors, The Logical Problem of Language<br />
Acquisition. MIT Press.<br />
Culicover, P. W. and Rochemont, M. S. (1990). Extraposition and <strong>the</strong> complement pr<strong>in</strong>ciple. L<strong>in</strong>guistic Inquiry.<br />
Fox, D. and Nissenbaum, J. (1999). Extraposition and Scope: A case for overt QR. In Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of WCCFL 18.<br />
Hunter, T. (2010). Relat<strong>in</strong>g Movement and Adjunction <strong>in</strong> Syntax and Semantics. PhD <strong>the</strong>sis, U. of Maryland.<br />
Landau, I. (2007). Constra<strong>in</strong>ts on Partial VP-front<strong>in</strong>g. Syntax, 10(2):127–164.<br />
Lebeaux, D. (1988). Language acquisition and <strong>the</strong> form of <strong>the</strong> grammar. PhD <strong>the</strong>sis, UMass Amherst.
Laura Kal<strong>in</strong> (UCLA) & Coppe van Urk (MIT)<br />
A novel aspect split <strong>in</strong> Senaya<br />
Summary: This paper adds to <strong>the</strong> typology of aspect-based case/agreement splits by present<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> unusual system of <strong>the</strong> Neo-Aramaic dialect of Senaya. In Senaya, a nom<strong>in</strong>ativeaccusative<br />
system <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> imperfective alternates with what resembles an antipassive <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
perfective. We argue that this system can be derived from <strong>the</strong> assumption that imperfective<br />
aspect <strong>in</strong>troduces additional structure, developed <strong>in</strong> recent work on split ergativity (Laka<br />
2006; Coon 2010; Coon & Prem<strong>in</strong>ger 2011). Specifically, we argue that <strong>in</strong> Senaya imperfective<br />
aspect <strong>in</strong>troduces an additional case assigner not present <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> perfective. We extend<br />
our analysis to o<strong>the</strong>r dialects of Neo-Aramaic <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> addition of <strong>the</strong> same φ-probe <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> imperfective results <strong>in</strong> a complete reversal of agreement.<br />
The data: Most nor<strong>the</strong>astern dialects of Neo-Aramaic display aspect-based split ergativity,<br />
with an ergative agreement alignment <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> perfective but an accusative one <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
imperfective (Doron & Khan 2010). In Senaya, however, this aspect-based split surfaces<br />
<strong>in</strong> an unusual way. As <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r Neo-Aramaic languages, <strong>the</strong>re are two sets of agreement<br />
morphemes — <strong>the</strong> so-called L-suffixes and S-suffixes. In <strong>the</strong> imperfective, an S-suffix on <strong>the</strong><br />
verb references <strong>the</strong> subject (1a-b), while def<strong>in</strong>ite objects are marked by an L-suffix (1b):<br />
(1)a. Axnii damx-ox. b. Aanii xazy-ii-lan<br />
we sleep.impf-1pl.S <strong>the</strong>y see.impf-3pl.S-1pl.L<br />
‘We sleep.’<br />
‘They see us.’<br />
In <strong>the</strong> perfective, however, someth<strong>in</strong>g closer to an antipassive is found, as <strong>the</strong> examples <strong>in</strong><br />
(2a-b) illustrate. The subject is marked on <strong>the</strong> verb with an L-suffix (<strong>the</strong> object marker of<br />
<strong>the</strong> imperfective), while objects cannot be marked and are <strong>the</strong>refore obligatorily <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite:<br />
(2)a. Axnii dmex-lan.<br />
b. Axnii xa yaala xzee-lan.<br />
we sleep.perf-1pl.L we one child see.perf-1pl.L<br />
‘We slept.’<br />
‘We saw a child.’<br />
Imperfective aspect <strong>in</strong>volves a locative head: Dixon (1994) observes that if a system<br />
has an aspect-based split, it is <strong>the</strong> perfective side of <strong>the</strong> split that displays an ergative<br />
pattern. To account for this generalization, it has been proposed that imperfective and/or<br />
progressive aspect may <strong>in</strong>troduce complex structure that disturbs <strong>the</strong> usual mechanis<strong>ms</strong> of<br />
case assignment, ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> form of a biclausal structure (Laka 2006; Coon 2010) or an<br />
additional phase boundary (Coon & Prem<strong>in</strong>ger 2011). Coon (2010) relates this to work<br />
by Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (2000, 2007), who propose that aspect is encoded us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
spatiotemporal relations. They argue that nonperfective aspects make use of prepositional,<br />
locative relations, such as WITHIN, BEFORE, and AFTER; perfective aspect, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
hand, cannot be expressed this way, aris<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stead as a default when Asp is empty. As such,<br />
nonperfective aspects <strong>in</strong>volve a locative predicate absent from perfective.<br />
The proposal: We assume <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of aspect-based splits outl<strong>in</strong>ed above and propose<br />
that, <strong>in</strong> Senaya, <strong>the</strong> prepositional locative head selected by imperfective Asp <strong>in</strong>troduces<br />
a φ-probe, whose reflex <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> morphology is an S-suffix. This P head agrees<br />
with and assigns case to <strong>the</strong> subject. As a result, <strong>the</strong> ord<strong>in</strong>ary case/agreement pattern is<br />
disturbed, s<strong>in</strong>ce it enables <strong>the</strong> φ-probe on T (a morphological L-suffix) to license a def<strong>in</strong>ite<br />
object. In addition, we assume that, aside from T and P under Asp, <strong>the</strong>re is no locus of<br />
agreement or case assigner <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> verbal sp<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> Senaya. As such, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> perfective, only<br />
<strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite objects are licit, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite objects may pseudo-<strong>in</strong>corporate <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> verb as<br />
NPs and hence do not require case (Dayal 2011, Massam 2001).
Derivations: Perfective (<strong>in</strong>)transitive(3): NolocativePhead; Tprobes<strong>the</strong>subject, valu<strong>in</strong>g<br />
case/agr., seen as an L-suffix. No case/agr. locus is available to license a def<strong>in</strong>ite object.<br />
Imperfective <strong>in</strong>transitive (4): The P head under Asp probes and f<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>the</strong> subject, valu<strong>in</strong>g<br />
case/agr., seen as an S-suffix. T probes but f<strong>in</strong>ds no active argument. Imperfective transitive<br />
(4): Same as above, but T probes <strong>the</strong> object; agreement with T spells out as an L-suffix.<br />
(3)<br />
(4)<br />
T<br />
[nom]<br />
L-suffix<br />
DP subj<br />
v<br />
V (NP <strong>in</strong>def obj )<br />
T<br />
[nom]<br />
L-suffix Asp<br />
P<br />
[loc]<br />
S-suffix<br />
DP subj<br />
v V (DPobj )<br />
Extension to agreement reversal dialects: The analysis outl<strong>in</strong>ed here can be extended<br />
straightforwardly to so-called “extended ergative” dialects of Neo-Aramaic (Doron & Khan<br />
2010), e.g., Christian Barwar. In <strong>the</strong>se dialects, <strong>the</strong> perfective base can host agreement with<br />
an object, an S-suffix, result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a complete reversal of agreement from <strong>the</strong> imperfective:<br />
(5)a. Tpít-le<br />
sneeze.perf-3<strong>ms</strong>.L<br />
‘He sneezed.’<br />
b. Qtil-á-le.<br />
kill.perf-3fs.S-3<strong>ms</strong>.L<br />
‘He killed her.’<br />
c. Mtăm@zz-a.<br />
clean.impf-3fs.S<br />
‘She cleans.’<br />
d. Qatl-á-le.<br />
kill.impf-3fs.S-3<strong>ms</strong>.L<br />
‘She kills him.’ (Khan 2008)<br />
The morpheme -le (3<strong>ms</strong>) marks <strong>the</strong> nom<strong>in</strong>ative argument <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> perfective, (5a,b), but<br />
<strong>the</strong> accusative one <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> imperfective, (5d). The morpheme -a (3fs) marks <strong>the</strong> accusative<br />
argument <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> perfective, (5b), but <strong>the</strong> nom<strong>in</strong>ative one <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> imperfective, (5c,d).<br />
The difference between <strong>the</strong>se dialects and Senaya, we argue, is <strong>the</strong> mechanism underly<strong>in</strong>g<br />
L-suffixes. In Senaya, L-suffixes result from φ-agreement, evidenced by <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
trigger stress shift, as true affixes do <strong>in</strong> Senaya. In C. Barwar and similar dialects, however,<br />
L-suffixes are clitics (Doron & Khan 2010). Follow<strong>in</strong>g Anagnostopoulou (2003) and Rezac<br />
(2011) among o<strong>the</strong>rs, we assume: (i) φ-probes split <strong>in</strong>to number and person, (ii) person<br />
probes before number, and (iii) clitic-doubled arguments are ignored by subsequent probes.<br />
Ifweposit, <strong>the</strong>n, that<strong>the</strong>personprobeonT<strong>in</strong>extendedergativedialects<strong>in</strong>discrim<strong>in</strong>ately<br />
triggers clitic-doubl<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>the</strong> first argument encountered, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> rest of <strong>the</strong> differences<br />
between Senaya and <strong>the</strong>se dialects fall out naturally. In <strong>the</strong> perfective, T licenses both<br />
<strong>the</strong> subject, by means of its person probe (⇒ clitic-doubl<strong>in</strong>g), and <strong>the</strong> object, by means<br />
of its number probe (⇒ agreement). In <strong>the</strong> imperfective, <strong>the</strong> φ-probe on P licenses <strong>the</strong><br />
subject, such that it is <strong>the</strong> object that gets clitic-doubled by person on T. Importantly,<br />
this account expla<strong>in</strong>s <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> object is limited to third person <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> perfective:<br />
this is a standard Person Case Constra<strong>in</strong>t (PCC) effect (Bonet 1991), and <strong>the</strong> above is<br />
straightforwardlycompatiblewi<strong>the</strong>xist<strong>in</strong>g accountsof<strong>the</strong>PCC(e.g., BéjarandRezac2003).<br />
Selected references: Coon, J.2010. Complementation <strong>in</strong> Chol: A <strong>the</strong>ory of split ergativity.<br />
Doctoral dissertation, MIT. – Doron, E., & G. Khan. 2010. The typology of morphological<br />
ergativity <strong>in</strong> Neo-Aramaic. <strong>ms</strong>. – Rezac, M. 2011. Phi-features and <strong>the</strong> modular architecture<br />
of language. Dordrecht: Spr<strong>in</strong>ger.
Laura Kertz (Brown)<br />
Referential Process<strong>in</strong>g Influences <strong>the</strong> Resolution of Verbal Anaphors<br />
Interest <strong>in</strong> verb phrase ellipsis has rebounded <strong>in</strong> recent years, as various proposals have<br />
sought to ref<strong>in</strong>e predictions from l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>the</strong>ory by <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g process<strong>in</strong>g-based assumptions.<br />
The long-stand<strong>in</strong>g Surface/Deep Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis of Hankamer & Sag (1976) holds that verb phrase<br />
ellipsis (like o<strong>the</strong>r surface anaphors) is governed by a parallelism constra<strong>in</strong>t which does not<br />
apply to deep/proform anaphora. Under this approach, parallelism is implicated <strong>in</strong> both <strong>the</strong><br />
licens<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>in</strong>terpretation of elliptical anaphors. It has been demonstrated that non-parallel verb<br />
phrase ellipses, for example, take longer to read and are rated less acceptable than comparable<br />
parallel structures. It is well-known, however, that <strong>the</strong> parallelism effect under ellipsis is<br />
unreliable and that parallelism effects are observed even for deep anaphors.<br />
Moreover, <strong>the</strong>re is scant evidence to demonstrate that parallelism actually constra<strong>in</strong>s possible<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretations for an ellipsis. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, it is <strong>the</strong> case that <strong>the</strong> auxiliary verb govern<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> ellipsis<br />
site can force ei<strong>the</strong>r a parallel or a non-parallel <strong>in</strong>terpretation, as <strong>in</strong> (1).<br />
(1) The accident was <strong>in</strong>vestigated by <strong>the</strong> police, and <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>surance company did/was too.<br />
Indeed Garnham & Oakhill (1987) show that when <strong>the</strong> auxiliary is ambiguous, <strong>the</strong> preference for<br />
a parallel <strong>in</strong>terpretation competes with a preference for choos<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> most plausible antecedent.<br />
If it is not <strong>the</strong> case that parallelism constra<strong>in</strong>s possible <strong>in</strong>terpretations, <strong>the</strong> question emerges:<br />
What role does parallelism play <strong>in</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g ellipsis?<br />
A recent proposal (Arregui et al 2006) holds that non-parallel antecedents <strong>in</strong>duce extra<br />
process<strong>in</strong>g costs associated with syntactic repair at <strong>the</strong> ellipsis site. Similarly, Kim et al (2010)<br />
argue that parallelism effects arise as a function of pars<strong>in</strong>g heuristics that favor canonical<br />
(parallel) VP antecedents. Both of <strong>the</strong>se proposals seek to reconcile a categorical licens<strong>in</strong>g<br />
mechanism with an <strong>in</strong>herently gradient performance model. An alternative view holds that<br />
parallelism effects under ellipsis are epiphenomenal. Kehler (2000, 2002), for example, argues<br />
that parallelism effects arise as an <strong>in</strong>teraction between <strong>the</strong> establishment of discourse coherence<br />
relations and processes support<strong>in</strong>g ellipsis resolution, while Kertz (2010) argues that parallelism<br />
effects follow from general <strong>in</strong>formation structural constra<strong>in</strong>ts on <strong>the</strong> alignment of contrastive<br />
arguments. Each of <strong>the</strong>se latter two proposals makes <strong>the</strong> specific prediction that parallelism<br />
effects arise <strong>in</strong> ellipses where <strong>the</strong> subject of <strong>the</strong> target clause is contrastive with a syntactically<br />
non-parallel argument <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> antecedent clause.<br />
The current study tested this prediction by compar<strong>in</strong>g effects of <strong>the</strong> referential status of <strong>the</strong><br />
subject noun phrase preced<strong>in</strong>g an ellipsis on <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of that ellipsis. Stimuli used for <strong>the</strong><br />
study featured ei<strong>the</strong>r a lexical NP (<strong>the</strong> firefighters) which contrasted with an argument <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
preced<strong>in</strong>g clause or a pronoun (it) which was co-referent with an argument <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> preced<strong>in</strong>g<br />
clause. The referential status of <strong>the</strong> pronoun was crossed with <strong>the</strong> form of <strong>the</strong> antecedent<br />
(parallel vs. non-parallel). A sample stimulus set is shown <strong>in</strong> (2)-(3).<br />
(2) The rangers didn’t <strong>in</strong>spect <strong>the</strong> campsite as thoroughly as<br />
<strong>the</strong> firefighters did. [lexical NP, parallel] / it could have been. [pronoun, non-parallel]<br />
(3) The campsite wasn’t <strong>in</strong>spected by <strong>the</strong> rangers as thoroughly as<br />
<strong>the</strong> firefighters did. [lexical NP, non-parallel] / it could have been. [pronoun, parallel]<br />
A parallel discourse relationship was made explicit by <strong>the</strong> use of an equative adverbial<br />
construction. Thus participants were not faced with <strong>the</strong> task of determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> coherence<br />
relation obta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g between <strong>the</strong> antecedent and <strong>the</strong> target. Interpretation of <strong>the</strong> ellipsis, however,
did require properly identify<strong>in</strong>g co-referent/contrastive arguments across <strong>the</strong> two clauses. For<br />
pronouns, coreference was unambiguously signaled by number mark<strong>in</strong>g; for lexical NPs, we<br />
predicted that identification of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tended contrast between <strong>the</strong> firefighters and <strong>the</strong> rangers<br />
would be dependent on whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> rangers <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> antecedent occurred <strong>in</strong> a parallel (subject)<br />
position. We fur<strong>the</strong>r predicted that successful identification of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tended contrast <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
parallel condition would lead to facilitation at <strong>the</strong> auxiliary verb region, where ellipsis resolution<br />
is <strong>in</strong>itiated.<br />
Sixteen stimulus sets like (2)-(3) were tested <strong>in</strong> an offl<strong>in</strong>e magnitude estimation task (n=36).<br />
Stimuli were adapted to <strong>in</strong>clude a spill-over region follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> ellipsis for a self-paced read<strong>in</strong>g<br />
task (n=48). Statistical analysis was conducted on log-transformed ratios of stimulus to modulus<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ME task and on both raw and residual read<strong>in</strong>g times trimmed to 3sd by region for <strong>the</strong> SPR<br />
task. (Results for raw and residual analyses were identical.) For all analyses, a mixed effects<br />
analysis with forward model selection for <strong>in</strong>clusion of random effects was conducted.<br />
Offl<strong>in</strong>e results showed an <strong>in</strong>teraction where non-parallel structures were dispreferred<br />
compared to parallel structures, but that difference was greater with lexical NPs. Onl<strong>in</strong>e, no<br />
statistically reliable effects of parallelism were observed. At <strong>the</strong> subject NP region, a crossover<br />
<strong>in</strong>teraction was observed where lexical NPs were read more slowly <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> parallel condition<br />
while pronouns were read more quickly. At <strong>the</strong> auxiliary verb region an effect of subject type<br />
only was observed. No reliable effects were observed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> post-ellipsis spill-over region.<br />
0.2<br />
0<br />
-0.2<br />
-0.4<br />
Offl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
Acceptability<br />
parallel non-parallel<br />
lexical NP pronoun<br />
550<br />
500<br />
450<br />
400<br />
350<br />
300<br />
<strong>the</strong> firefighters<br />
it<br />
<strong>Raw</strong> <strong>Read<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>Times</strong> (<strong>ms</strong>)<br />
did<br />
could have been<br />
after <strong>the</strong><br />
after <strong>the</strong><br />
lexical NP<br />
parallel<br />
lexical NP<br />
non-parallel<br />
pronoun<br />
parallel<br />
pronoun<br />
non-parallel<br />
Consistent with f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong>, e.g. Birch & Rayner (1997), we <strong>in</strong>terpret <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>creased read<strong>in</strong>g times<br />
for <strong>the</strong> lexical NPs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> parallel condition as evidence that readers treated <strong>the</strong>se NPs as<br />
l<strong>in</strong>guistically focused constituents, i.e. readers recognized <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tended contrast between <strong>the</strong> two<br />
arguments. Identification of focus <strong>in</strong> this region had a downstream effect of reduc<strong>in</strong>g process<strong>in</strong>g<br />
time at <strong>the</strong> ellipsis. In <strong>the</strong> non-parallel, lexical NP condition, this facilitative effect was not<br />
observed, and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> pronoun conditions, no effects of parallelism were seen.<br />
These results thus confirm <strong>the</strong> prediction that parallelism <strong>in</strong>teracts with referential process<strong>in</strong>g<br />
for contrastive noun phrases, which can <strong>in</strong> turn <strong>in</strong>fluence verbal anaphor resolution. This<br />
<strong>in</strong>teraction was also seen to <strong>in</strong>fluence offl<strong>in</strong>e acceptability. While <strong>the</strong> results are not <strong>in</strong>compatible<br />
with models that would reta<strong>in</strong> a categorical licens<strong>in</strong>g mechanism for ellipsis, <strong>the</strong> results do show<br />
that parallelism constra<strong>in</strong>ts on process<strong>in</strong>g are weak/violable and crucially <strong>in</strong>teract <strong>in</strong> a<br />
predictable manner with o<strong>the</strong>r aspects of <strong>the</strong> discourse context.
Ezra Keshet (Michigan)<br />
Scopal Effects of Embedded Coherence Relations<br />
Researchers s<strong>in</strong>ce Hobbs (1979) have proposed that an important part of understand<strong>in</strong>g a mult-‐<br />
sentence discourse is understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> (often unspoken) relationship between <strong>the</strong> various<br />
sentences (see also Kehler 2002 and Asher and Lascarides 2003). For <strong>in</strong>stance, <strong>the</strong> two<br />
sentences of (1) below are not understood as be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dependent of one ano<strong>the</strong>r. Instead,<br />
speakers tend to <strong>in</strong>fer a relationship between paraphraseable as <strong>in</strong> (2):<br />
(1) John ate <strong>the</strong> shellfish. He got horrible food poison<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
(2) John got horrible food poison<strong>in</strong>g because he ate <strong>the</strong> shellfish.<br />
Such connections between sentences <strong>in</strong> a discourse are known as coherence relations. In (1),<br />
<strong>the</strong> second sentence is understood to be <strong>the</strong> result of <strong>the</strong> first, and <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> coherence<br />
relation <strong>in</strong> effect here is called <strong>the</strong> Result relation.<br />
This phenomenon immediately raises <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g questions about <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>teraction between<br />
grammar and context: for <strong>in</strong>stance, what is <strong>the</strong> grammatical status of such coherence relations?<br />
Are <strong>the</strong>y due to purely pragmatic reason<strong>in</strong>g, or is <strong>the</strong>re some syntactic component responsible<br />
for such <strong>in</strong>ferences? Do <strong>the</strong>y only hold at <strong>the</strong> sentence level, or can <strong>the</strong>y affect sentence-‐<br />
<strong>in</strong>ternal mean<strong>in</strong>g? Rohde, Levy, and Kehler (2011) take a stab at this last question, exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
cases like (3), a s<strong>in</strong>gle sentence whose <strong>in</strong>ternal clauses seem to exhibit <strong>the</strong> same potential for<br />
coherence relations as <strong>the</strong> separate sentences of (1). Example (3) is usually understood as <strong>in</strong><br />
(4), thus exhibit<strong>in</strong>g an Explanation relation between <strong>the</strong> matrix clause and <strong>the</strong> relative clause.<br />
(3) John detests <strong>the</strong> coworkers who are arrogant and rude.<br />
(4) John detests <strong>the</strong> coworkers who are arrogant and rude because <strong>the</strong>y are arrogant and<br />
rude.<br />
Rohde et al (2011) show experimentally that such sentence-‐<strong>in</strong>ternal coherence relations can<br />
<strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of a purely syntactic phenomenon, namely where to attach a<br />
prepositional phrase. This suggests that whe<strong>the</strong>r coherence is pragmatic or <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> grammar, it<br />
plays a role <strong>in</strong> sentence-‐<strong>in</strong>ternal mean<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
This paper takes a step fur<strong>the</strong>r and suggests that coherence relations arise due to a covert<br />
syntactic operator, which can <strong>in</strong>teract with scopal elements such as quantifiers. Take (5), for<br />
<strong>in</strong>stance, which see<strong>ms</strong> to have a sentence-‐<strong>in</strong>ternal Result relation between <strong>the</strong> relative clause<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject and <strong>the</strong> matrix sentence:<br />
(5) Everyone who ate <strong>the</strong> shellfish got horrible food poison<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Imag<strong>in</strong>e that party guests A, B, and C all ate <strong>the</strong> shellfish and got food poison<strong>in</strong>g. The crucial<br />
observation is that <strong>the</strong> coherence <strong>in</strong>fe������������������������������<br />
������������������������������������������������<br />
shellfish <strong>in</strong>gestion r���������������������������������������<br />
<strong>in</strong> ���������������������������������������������<br />
�����������������������������������������������<br />
thought to lead to his or her own poison<strong>in</strong>g. Some similar examples:
(6) Everyone who John detested was arrogant and rude. [Explanation]<br />
(7) No one who drank pomegranate juice regularly got cancer. [Result]<br />
(8) No one who John detests is ever nice to him. [Explanation]<br />
I propose to capture <strong>the</strong>se connections with a set of covert syntactic operators that presuppose<br />
a relationship between <strong>the</strong> event represented by <strong>the</strong> sentence <strong>the</strong>y appear <strong>in</strong> and a<br />
contextually previous event (assum<strong>in</strong>g that events may be states or dynamic events). For<br />
<strong>in</strong>stance, <strong>the</strong> structure I propose for (1) is given <strong>in</strong> (9), and a few relevant operator def<strong>in</strong>itions<br />
are given below:<br />
(9) [[John ate <strong>the</strong> shellfish] =e1] [[Result(e1) [He got food poison<strong>in</strong>g]] =e2]<br />
(10) ������������������������������������������<br />
(11) ����������������������������������<br />
����������������������������<br />
�������������������������������<br />
(12) �������������������������������������������<br />
����������������������������������������<br />
An example like (5) arises when such operators scope below a quantifier, as shown below:<br />
(13) [Everyone whox [[x ate <strong>the</strong> shellfish] =e1]]x [[Result(e1) [x got food poison<strong>in</strong>g]] =e2]]<br />
Here, <strong>the</strong> variable e1 is an e-‐type pronoun rang<strong>in</strong>g over events where different <strong>in</strong>dividuals x eat<br />
shellfish. The Result operator that scopes below <strong>the</strong> quantification DP relates each such event<br />
to <strong>the</strong> event where <strong>the</strong> same <strong>in</strong>dividual x gets food poison<strong>in</strong>g. (I named all <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
variables <strong>in</strong> (13) x s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>y all end up pick<strong>in</strong>g out <strong>the</strong> same <strong>in</strong>dividual.)<br />
If such operators exist, <strong>the</strong>y should <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple give rise to scope ambiguities, and this is exactly<br />
what I propose happens <strong>in</strong> (14):<br />
(14) John is arrogant and rude. Everyone he works with detests him.<br />
One read<strong>in</strong>g of (14) is that each <strong>in</strong>dividual coworker happens to detest John for <strong>the</strong> same<br />
reason � namely that he is arrogant and rude. Co-‐worker A detests him for this reason, co-‐<br />
worker B detests him for this reason, etc. I argue that this read<strong>in</strong>g arises when a Result<br />
operator scopes below <strong>the</strong> quantificational DP Everyone he works with analogously to structure<br />
(13). However, <strong>the</strong>re is ano<strong>the</strong>r read<strong>in</strong>g of (14) � one where <strong>the</strong> fact that John is arrogant and<br />
rude expla<strong>in</strong>s why every one of his co-‐workers detests him. Perhaps co-‐workers A and B detest<br />
arrogant people, and C and D detest rude people. It is because John is arrogant and rude that<br />
<strong>the</strong> whole office detests him. I argue that this read<strong>in</strong>g arises when a Result operator scopes<br />
above <strong>the</strong> quantificational DP.<br />
This new evidence suggests a close connection between coherence relations and grammar.<br />
After mak<strong>in</strong>g this argument, <strong>the</strong> paper concludes by exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>teraction of such<br />
coherence operators with o<strong>the</strong>r scopal operators, such as modals, and by look<strong>in</strong>g at <strong>the</strong> effect<br />
this analysis might have on a <strong>the</strong>ory of anaphora.
Arnout Koornneef & Eric Reuland (Utrecht)<br />
Grammar and Process<strong>in</strong>g Economy<br />
One of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>trigu<strong>in</strong>g issues <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> relation between grammar and <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g<br />
system concerns <strong>the</strong> resolution of anaphoric dependencies. What is <strong>the</strong> role of <strong>the</strong><br />
various sub-components of <strong>the</strong> language system (syntax, logical form, discourse) and<br />
how can <strong>the</strong>ir roles be dist<strong>in</strong>guished as <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation of an utterance develops<br />
through time? We know that at least two fundamentally different types of <strong>in</strong>terpretive<br />
processes must be dist<strong>in</strong>guished <strong>in</strong> anaphora resolution (leav<strong>in</strong>g aside lexical and<br />
strictly syntactic encod<strong>in</strong>g): Coreference (cont<strong>in</strong>gently assign<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> same value to<br />
two expressions) and Variable B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g (VB) (Heim 1982, Re<strong>in</strong>hart 1983, Reuland<br />
2001, 2011). VB is encoded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> grammatical system and sensitive to particular<br />
structural conditions (e.g. c-command), but <strong>the</strong> former is freely available, modulo a<br />
regulatory pr<strong>in</strong>ciple such as Re<strong>in</strong>hart and Grodz<strong>in</strong>sky (1993)’s Rule I, or Reuland<br />
(2011)’s Rejection is F<strong>in</strong>al. The operative pr<strong>in</strong>ciple here is an economy preference for<br />
b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g over co-reference. For details about <strong>the</strong> economy metric, based on <strong>the</strong> idea<br />
that cross-modular steps carry a cost, see Reuland (2001, 2011).<br />
This ties <strong>in</strong> with a debate <strong>in</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g studies. A consistent f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> offl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
studies on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation of ambiguous VP-ellipses is that bound-variable (BV)<br />
based <strong>in</strong>terpretations are preferred over coreferential <strong>in</strong>terpretations, see Frazier and<br />
Clifton 2000 (F&C) for an overview.<br />
On <strong>the</strong> basis of such results – see also Avrut<strong>in</strong> (1999), and Vasic´ et al. (2006)<br />
for a more recent result <strong>in</strong> agrammatic aphasics - F&C formulate and test, us<strong>in</strong>g selfpaced<br />
read<strong>in</strong>g and questionnaires, <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis <strong>in</strong> (1):<br />
(1) LF only/first hypo<strong>the</strong>sis: Bound-variable <strong>in</strong>terpretations are preferred because<br />
<strong>the</strong> perceiver need only consult <strong>the</strong> LF representation (not <strong>the</strong> discourse<br />
representation) <strong>in</strong> order to identify <strong>the</strong> bound-variable analysis of <strong>the</strong> sentence.<br />
F&C f<strong>in</strong>d two proble<strong>ms</strong> with (1): i. With some qualifications, a BV-preference also<br />
appears to obta<strong>in</strong> across sentence boundaries, as <strong>in</strong> (2), which accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong>m is<br />
<strong>in</strong>compatible with <strong>the</strong> conception of LF. ii. They f<strong>in</strong>d a preference for a co-referential<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation <strong>in</strong> only-sentences as <strong>in</strong> (3b).<br />
(2) The clown loves his cat. The acrobat does too.<br />
(3) a. Only Alfred th<strong>in</strong>ks (that) he is a good cook.<br />
b. Only Alfred th<strong>in</strong>ks that Alfred is a good cook (coreference)<br />
c. The only person who th<strong>in</strong>ks of hi<strong>ms</strong>elf as a good cook is Alfred. (BV).<br />
As we will briefly show, problem i. is resolved by us<strong>in</strong>g an explicit <strong>the</strong>ory of ellipsis,<br />
as <strong>in</strong> Elbourne (2008). Our paper <strong>the</strong>refore focuses on ii. We will consider not only<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation <strong>the</strong> processor assigns, but also <strong>the</strong> process lead<strong>in</strong>g to this<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation. For <strong>the</strong> latter one needs on-l<strong>in</strong>e evidence, which so far is almost absent.<br />
In a comb<strong>in</strong>ation of two experiments (i. a questionnaire; and ii. an eyetrack<strong>in</strong>g<br />
experiment) we show that <strong>the</strong> b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g preference is not solely an offl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
phenomenon, but can be detected <strong>in</strong> real-time measures of language comprehension.<br />
Contra F&C we found that <strong>the</strong> b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g preference of <strong>the</strong> language processor shows up<br />
<strong>in</strong> ambiguous structures with <strong>the</strong> only-operator as well.<br />
In both experiments short stories were presented conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a critical sentence that<br />
was ambiguous between a sloppy and a strict read<strong>in</strong>g. There were 4 categories:<br />
[Sloppy-bias, only-operator], [Strict-bias, only-operator], [Sloppy-bias, ellipsis],<br />
[Strict-bias, ellipsis]. For space reasons we only illustrate <strong>the</strong> type of story we used:<br />
(4) Lisa and Anouk love <strong>the</strong> music channel MTV. They were very happy when <strong>the</strong>y<br />
were selected for <strong>the</strong> show ‘‘Pimp My Room,’’ <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong>ir roo<strong>ms</strong> were<br />
redecorated. Only Lisa th<strong>in</strong>ks that her pimped room has a touch of class. Oh<br />
well, to each <strong>the</strong>ir owntaste. (sloppy bias)
The aim of experiment i. was two-fold: a. to pretest materials for experiment ii; and b.<br />
to provide a prelim<strong>in</strong>ary check on <strong>the</strong> solidity of F&C’s questionnaire f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />
There were 20 participants. The materials were 36 short stories. The stories were<br />
directly followed by two <strong>in</strong>ferences that were consistent with ei<strong>the</strong>r a sloppy or a<br />
strict <strong>in</strong>terpretation. The participants had to rate both <strong>in</strong>ferences, and <strong>in</strong>dicate which<br />
one <strong>the</strong>y preferred. F<strong>in</strong>ally, participants rated <strong>the</strong> stories on difficulty and plausibility.<br />
Overall, <strong>the</strong> results revealed that it was easier to create a bias towards a sloppy<br />
read<strong>in</strong>g, which is consistent with <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis that <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of ambiguity <strong>the</strong><br />
parser prefers a bound-variable dependency over a coreferential dependency.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, planned pairwise comparisons showed that <strong>the</strong> proper <strong>in</strong>ference of<br />
strict-biased stories <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> only-condition was relatively difficult to obta<strong>in</strong>. In addition,<br />
<strong>the</strong>se stories were also rated more difficult and less plausible than strict biased stories<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ellipsis condition. In all, <strong>the</strong>se rat<strong>in</strong>gs suggest that <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> stories with <strong>the</strong> onlyoperator,<br />
<strong>the</strong> strict read<strong>in</strong>g is less accessible, which is <strong>in</strong>consistent with an account <strong>in</strong><br />
which <strong>the</strong> preference for a bound-variable dependency is stronger <strong>in</strong> ambiguous<br />
ellipses than <strong>in</strong> ambiguous only-structures.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> eye-track<strong>in</strong>g experiment <strong>the</strong> pretested stimuli were presented to 32<br />
healthy adults who did not participate <strong>in</strong> experiment i. Our model predicts that readers<br />
prefer a BV <strong>in</strong>terpretation regardless of <strong>the</strong> content of <strong>the</strong> preced<strong>in</strong>g discourse. That<br />
is, <strong>the</strong>y <strong>in</strong>itially assign a sloppy <strong>in</strong>terpretation, which requires back-track<strong>in</strong>g once all<br />
discourse <strong>in</strong>formation is processed.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> ellipsis region (note, though, that this region is absent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> onlyconditions)<br />
<strong>the</strong> regression-path measure revealed a clear advantage for sloppy<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretations, show<strong>in</strong>g reliably that <strong>the</strong> b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g preference is not solely an offl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
phenomenon, but is also observable <strong>in</strong> onl<strong>in</strong>e measures of language comprehension.<br />
The results are consistent with <strong>the</strong> claim that <strong>in</strong> strict-biased stories readers<br />
experience proble<strong>ms</strong>, because <strong>the</strong>y <strong>in</strong>itially try to <strong>in</strong>tegrate a sloppy <strong>in</strong>terpretation <strong>in</strong>to<br />
a strict context. Before mov<strong>in</strong>g on, <strong>the</strong>y have to change <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>terpretation to resolve<br />
this <strong>in</strong>consistency and longer regressions-path durations are <strong>the</strong>refore expected.<br />
The second sentence region revealed a clear contrast between first-pass and<br />
second-pass eye movement measures. The second-pass durations were almost twice<br />
as long for <strong>the</strong> strict-biased stories. Apparently, readers need to reexam<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> second<br />
sentence (conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> critical manipulation) longer if <strong>the</strong>y process a strict-biased<br />
story. This was true for both ellipses and only-structures. Hence, <strong>the</strong> preference for<br />
sloppy <strong>in</strong>terpretations reflects a more general property of <strong>the</strong> language processor.<br />
These results give a clearer picture of what happens while readers encounter<br />
<strong>the</strong> sloppy-strict ambiguity, and support our economy based model. There were some<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>trigu<strong>in</strong>g f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs, shedd<strong>in</strong>g light on <strong>the</strong> details of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation process<br />
which we will discuss if time permits.<br />
Selected References<br />
Avrut<strong>in</strong>, S. 1999. Development of <strong>the</strong> syntax-discourse <strong>in</strong>terface. Dordrecht: Kluwer<br />
Elbourne, P. 2008. Ellipsis Sites as Def<strong>in</strong>ite Descriptions. L<strong>in</strong>guistic Inquiry 39, 191-<br />
220<br />
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. 2000. On bound variable <strong>in</strong>terpretations: The LF-only<br />
hypo<strong>the</strong>sis. Journal of Psychol<strong>in</strong>guistic Research, 29, 125–139<br />
Koornneef, A.W. 2008. Eye-catch<strong>in</strong>g Anaphora. Utrecht: LOT dissertation<br />
Reuland, E. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. MIT Press<br />
Vasic´, N., Avrut<strong>in</strong>, S., & Ruigendijk, E. 2006. Interpretation of pronouns <strong>in</strong> VPellipsis<br />
constructions <strong>in</strong> Dutch Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia. Bra<strong>in</strong> and Language,<br />
96, 191–206.
Hadas Kotek (MIT)<br />
Wh-Front<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a Two-Probe System<br />
The study of wh-movement has dist<strong>in</strong>guished among several types of wh-front<strong>in</strong>g languages that<br />
permit dist<strong>in</strong>ct patterns of overt and covert movement, <strong>in</strong>stantiated for example by <strong>the</strong> Slavic<br />
languages, English and German (Beck 2006). In this talk I extend <strong>the</strong> cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistic typology of<br />
multiple questions by argu<strong>in</strong>g that Hebrew <strong>in</strong>stantiates a new k<strong>in</strong>d of wh-front<strong>in</strong>g language, unlike<br />
any that are presently discussed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> literature. I will show that Hebrew dist<strong>in</strong>guishes between two<br />
k<strong>in</strong>ds of wh-phrases—those that are headed by a wh-word (wh-headed phrases: what, who, [ DP which X],<br />
where ...) and those that conta<strong>in</strong> a wh-word but are headed by some o<strong>the</strong>r element (wh-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
phrases: [ NP N of wh], [ PP P wh] …). Wh-headed phrases are privileged <strong>in</strong> that <strong>the</strong>y can be targeted by<br />
Agree/Attract operations that ignore mere wh-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g phrases <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> same structure.<br />
To establish <strong>the</strong> privileged status of wh-headed phrases, I exam<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> behavior of multiple questions<br />
<strong>in</strong> Hebrew. I first observe that, as with D-l<strong>in</strong>ked wh-phrases <strong>in</strong> English, <strong>the</strong>re is a correlation <strong>in</strong><br />
Hebrew between apparent superiority violations and <strong>in</strong>tervention effects (Pesetsky 2000). I add a<br />
third correlate to this f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g, concern<strong>in</strong>g possible read<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong> questions:<br />
(1) a. Superiority-Obey<strong>in</strong>g Questions (SOQs) never exhibit <strong>in</strong>tervention effects; <strong>the</strong>y may have<br />
s<strong>in</strong>gle-pair answers as well as pair-list answers.<br />
b. Superiority-Violat<strong>in</strong>g Questions (SVQs) are grammatical but <strong>the</strong>y are sensitive to Beck<br />
<strong>in</strong>tervention effects; <strong>the</strong>y may only have pair-list answers but not s<strong>in</strong>gle-pair answers.<br />
I will show that <strong>the</strong>se facts can be captured with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of Q-particles under standard<br />
assumptions about superiority and <strong>in</strong>tervention effects (Pesetsky 2000, Beck 2006, Cable 2010). In<br />
<strong>the</strong>se <strong>the</strong>ories, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> derivation of SOQs, all wh-phrases move to Spec,CP by LF. In <strong>the</strong> derivation<br />
of SVQs <strong>the</strong> higher wh-phrase is left <strong>in</strong> situ, allow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> lower wh-phrase to be <strong>the</strong> first element<br />
attracted to Spec,CP. Intervention effects arise when a focus-sensitive element occurs between <strong>the</strong><br />
wh-<strong>in</strong>-situ and <strong>the</strong> head with which it Agrees. I adopt an economy pr<strong>in</strong>ciple on LFs based on <strong>the</strong><br />
work of Fox (2000) which, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> work of Dayal (2002) on <strong>the</strong> presuppositions of s<strong>in</strong>glepair<br />
and pair-list answers, can expla<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> distribution of read<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />
The evidence for <strong>the</strong> existence of two k<strong>in</strong>ds of wh-phrases <strong>in</strong> Hebrew comes from <strong>the</strong> same three<br />
sources: superiority, <strong>in</strong>tervention effects and read<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong> questions. We observe <strong>the</strong> special status<br />
of wh-headed phrases when a wh-headed phrase occurs structurally lower <strong>in</strong> a question than a whconta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
phrase. I argue that <strong>in</strong> that case, certa<strong>in</strong> operations target <strong>the</strong> lower wh-headed phrase and<br />
entirely overlook <strong>the</strong> presence of <strong>the</strong> higher wh-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g phrase. This allows <strong>the</strong> question to be<br />
derived from a structure <strong>in</strong> which no wh-phrase rema<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> situ at LF; <strong>the</strong> first operation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
derivation is one that only targets wh-headed phrases and a subsequent operation is one that can<br />
target <strong>the</strong> (higher) wh-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g phrase. This derivation correctly predicts that such questions are<br />
not sensitive to Beck <strong>in</strong>tervention effects and have s<strong>in</strong>gle-pair (as well as pair-list) answers.<br />
One example of <strong>the</strong> privileged status of wh-headed phrases is illustrated by <strong>the</strong> m<strong>in</strong>imal pairs <strong>in</strong> (2ac).<br />
These example conta<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> optional object marker et—analyzed here as a preposition—on <strong>the</strong><br />
direct object of read. When et is present, <strong>the</strong> phrase et ma is headed by et and is hence a wh-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
phrase; when et is absent, bare ma is a wh-headed phrase. Questions with <strong>the</strong> (based-generated)<br />
configuration [wh-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g phrase 1] ≫ [wh-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g phrase 2] behave as expected: <strong>the</strong> SOQ is<br />
grammatical, (2a), but <strong>the</strong> SVQ is ungrammatical when an <strong>in</strong>tervener (here: negation) is present,<br />
(2b). In <strong>the</strong> configuration [wh-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g phrase 1] ≫ [wh-headed phrase 2] we f<strong>in</strong>d that <strong>the</strong> SVQ is<br />
unexpectedly not sensitive to <strong>the</strong> presence of an <strong>in</strong>tervener, (2c), and that it can have a s<strong>in</strong>gle-pair<br />
answer as well as a pair-list answer, just like <strong>the</strong> superiority-obey<strong>in</strong>g question.<br />
(2) Unexpected lack of <strong>in</strong>tervention effect <strong>in</strong> superiority-violat<strong>in</strong>g question<br />
a. [et mi] ha-mora lo šixne’a [ likro (et) [ma] ]?<br />
OM who <strong>the</strong>-teacher neg persuaded to.read OM what
‘Who did <strong>the</strong> teacher not persuade to read what?’<br />
b. *[et ma] ha-mora lo šixne’a [et mi] [ likro ___ ]?<br />
OM what <strong>the</strong>-teacher neg persuaded OM who to.read<br />
c. ? [ma] ha-mora lo šixne’a [et mi] [ likro ___ ]?<br />
what <strong>the</strong>-teacher neg persuaded OM who to.read<br />
‘What did <strong>the</strong> teacher not persuade whom to read?’<br />
The sensitivity of <strong>in</strong>terrogative prob<strong>in</strong>g operations to material <strong>in</strong>side QP is unexpected <strong>in</strong> Cable's Q<strong>the</strong>ory<br />
framework, given <strong>the</strong> structure <strong>in</strong> (3a). I will propose two m<strong>in</strong>imal, yet significant, additions<br />
to <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory. First, I adopt a f<strong>in</strong>e-gra<strong>in</strong>ed structure of QP <strong>in</strong> Hebrew-type wh-front<strong>in</strong>g languages: I<br />
propose that when Q is merged with XP, it immediately attracts <strong>the</strong> next lower head, X. After X<br />
head-moves to Q, <strong>the</strong>y both project and become co-heads of <strong>the</strong> result<strong>in</strong>g phrase. The derivation of<br />
wh-<strong>in</strong>-situ languages and of English/German-type wh-front<strong>in</strong>g languages proceeds as <strong>in</strong> Cable (2010):<br />
if X projects we derive a wh-<strong>in</strong>-situ language like Japanese or Korean. If Q projects we derive <strong>the</strong><br />
familiar English/German-type wh-front<strong>in</strong>g language <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal structure of QP is opaque<br />
to <strong>the</strong> outside derivation. If both X and Q project we derive a Hebrew-type wh-front<strong>in</strong>g language, <strong>in</strong><br />
which not only Q but also X is visible to outside prob<strong>in</strong>g. Crucially, we predict that a wh-word<br />
projects to <strong>the</strong> QP level when it is <strong>the</strong> head of XP but not when it is buried somewhere with<strong>in</strong> XP.<br />
We can thus dist<strong>in</strong>guish between wh-headed phrases (3bi) and wh-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g phrases (3bii).<br />
(3) a. proposal <strong>in</strong> Cable (2010) b. proposed new QP structure for Hebrew-type wh-front<strong>in</strong>g languages:<br />
for all wh-front<strong>in</strong>g languages (i) wh-headed phrases (ii) wh-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g phrases<br />
QwhP<br />
QP<br />
X+QP<br />
XP<br />
XP<br />
XP<br />
Q<br />
Q<br />
Q<br />
wh<br />
…<br />
X<br />
… wh …<br />
… wh …<br />
Moreover, I propose that our <strong>the</strong>ory must have a wh-probe <strong>in</strong> addition to <strong>the</strong> Q-probe. The Q-probe<br />
operates <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> familiar way, target<strong>in</strong>g any k<strong>in</strong>d of wh-phrase. The wh-probe, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, only<br />
targets wh-headed phrases and cannot detect <strong>the</strong> presence of wh-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g phrases. This proposal, I<br />
argue, <strong>in</strong>corporates all of <strong>the</strong> advantages of Cable’s orig<strong>in</strong>al <strong>the</strong>ory but is empirically superior <strong>in</strong><br />
provid<strong>in</strong>g a natural explanation for an <strong>in</strong>tricate set of data that is o<strong>the</strong>rwise unexpla<strong>in</strong>ed. In addition,<br />
I suggest that this proposal is conceptually more appeal<strong>in</strong>g than <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al <strong>the</strong>ory s<strong>in</strong>ce it allows for<br />
all <strong>in</strong>terrogative phrases <strong>in</strong> a question to undergo syntactic Agreement, whereas <strong>in</strong> Cable’s <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
some phrases trigger <strong>in</strong>terrogative semantics but are <strong>in</strong>visible to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rwise correspond<strong>in</strong>g syntax.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, I show that <strong>the</strong> complicated system of <strong>in</strong>terrogative prob<strong>in</strong>g that emerges from <strong>the</strong> addition<br />
of a second probe <strong>in</strong>teracts <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g ways with locality restrictions: Superiority reemerges when a<br />
f<strong>in</strong>ite clause-boundary is <strong>in</strong>troduced between <strong>the</strong> two wh-phrases. In this configuration, superiority<br />
can be violated just <strong>in</strong> case a lower wh-headed phrase is moved over a wh-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g phrase, see (4ab).<br />
Surpris<strong>in</strong>gly, we <strong>the</strong>n observe <strong>in</strong>tervention effects for <strong>the</strong> question <strong>in</strong> (4b), and <strong>the</strong> only possible<br />
answer is pair-list. I will show how my proposal can be extended to account for <strong>the</strong>se facts.<br />
(4) Superiority effect reemerges when wh’s separated by clause boundary, and <strong>the</strong> exception to <strong>the</strong> rule<br />
a. *[et ma] ha-mora šixne’a [et mi] [ CP še-Yosi kara ___ ]?<br />
OM what <strong>the</strong>-teacher persuaded OM who that-Yosi read<br />
b. ? [ma] ha-mora šixne’a [et mi] [ CP še-Yosi kara ___ ]?<br />
what <strong>the</strong>-teacher persuaded OM who that-Yosi read<br />
‘What did <strong>the</strong> teacher persuade whom that Yosi read?’<br />
Selected references: Beck, S. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus <strong>in</strong>terpretation. NALS � Cable,<br />
S. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement and pied-pip<strong>in</strong>g. Oxford Uni. Press. � Dayal, V. 2002.<br />
S<strong>in</strong>gle-pair vs. multiple-pair answers: Wh <strong>in</strong>-situ and scope. LI � Fox, D. 2000. Economy and semantic<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation. MIT Press. � Pesetsky, D. 2000. Phrasal movement and its k<strong>in</strong>. MIT Press.
Ivona Kučerová (McMaster)<br />
Case Independence and Split Ergativity: Toward a Unified Theory of Case Assignment<br />
Two recent proposals, Coon and Prem<strong>in</strong>ger 2011 (henceforth, C&P) and Kučerová 2011 (henceforth, K),<br />
argued that case assignment is sensitive to <strong>the</strong> size of <strong>the</strong> syntactic structure. While C&P, follow<strong>in</strong>g Coon<br />
2010, concentrated on <strong>the</strong> Ergative/Absolutive (E/A) case syste<strong>ms</strong>, more precisely, on <strong>the</strong> syntactic source<br />
of split ergativity, K <strong>in</strong>vestigated emergence of Accusative(Acc)assignment<strong>in</strong>syntacticenvironmentslack<strong>in</strong>g<br />
an external argument and Nom<strong>in</strong>ative (Nom) case. The goal of this paper is to unify <strong>the</strong> two proposals<br />
and argue that cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistically case assignment is sensitive to <strong>the</strong> size of <strong>the</strong> syntactic structure. More<br />
precisely, <strong>the</strong> actual case assignment reflects which heads are strong phase heads and as such constitute<br />
Spell-out doma<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> given syntactic structure (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2001,Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky2005,Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky2008).Consequently,<br />
case assignment splits are predicted not to be restricted to E/A syste<strong>ms</strong> but should be <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple<br />
available <strong>in</strong> N/A syste<strong>ms</strong> as well. Data from Arabic copular clauses confirm this prediction.<br />
C&P: C&P observed that tense and person related <strong>in</strong>stances of split ergativityhavetwoproperties<strong>in</strong>common:<br />
(i) Structures that exhibit <strong>the</strong> split case system are syntactically larger than <strong>the</strong> structures that exhibit<br />
<strong>the</strong> regular E/A pattern. (ii) The split pattern is best characterized as a lack of morphological mark<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Thus, <strong>the</strong>re are no dist<strong>in</strong>ct morphological case end<strong>in</strong>gs. Instead, <strong>the</strong> split pattern exhibits a lack of overt<br />
case end<strong>in</strong>gs. Based on <strong>the</strong>se two empirical generalizations, <strong>the</strong>yproposedthatsplitergativityisalackof<br />
case assignment due to a non-local configuration, i.e., <strong>the</strong> two relevant DPs end up be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> two separate<br />
case doma<strong>in</strong>s, one of which is not local with respect to <strong>the</strong> Erg case assigner. The emerg<strong>in</strong>g morphological<br />
pattern is best characterized as default case result<strong>in</strong>g from lackoffeaturecheck<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
K: Karguedthatview<strong>in</strong>gAccasacasedependentonNomoron<strong>the</strong>presence of an external argument is<br />
empirically <strong>in</strong>adequate s<strong>in</strong>ce we can f<strong>in</strong>d Acc <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> absence of an external argument or an argument receiv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Nom. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to her, Acc is assigned only if <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal argument is spelled-out with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> vP<br />
phase. If v does not trigger Spell-out, Acc is not available. KadoptsRichard’sDist<strong>in</strong>ctnessConditionon<br />
L<strong>in</strong>earization (Richards 2003, 2006) accord<strong>in</strong>g to which vP can be spelled out only if it can be l<strong>in</strong>earized.<br />
For <strong>the</strong> condition to be satisfied <strong>the</strong> merge of v and its complement cannot be <strong>the</strong> maximal projection of v<br />
but <strong>the</strong> vP must be fur<strong>the</strong>r extended. The required extension is usuallyachievedbymergeofanexternal<br />
argument but <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple is <strong>in</strong>dependent of it. K discuses data from Polish, Ukra<strong>in</strong>ian, and North Russian<br />
<strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> required extension is achieved <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>stances of have-Perfect. Even though <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />
external argument, <strong>the</strong> ‘transitivity’-like extension is achieved by add<strong>in</strong>g a structure semantically associated<br />
with sub<strong>in</strong>terval properties and <strong>in</strong> some languages morphologically realized as have. Ascanbeseen<strong>in</strong>(1)<br />
from North Russian dialects, an <strong>in</strong>ternal argument can get ei<strong>the</strong>r Nom or Acc; crucially, <strong>the</strong> case assignment<br />
is <strong>in</strong>dependent of agreement: <strong>in</strong> both cases, <strong>the</strong> verbal agreement shows morphological default. However,<br />
once <strong>the</strong> have-Perfect <strong>in</strong>terpretation is enforced, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal argument must be realized as Acc, (2).<br />
(1) North Russian (Danylenko, 2006, p. 255–256, (18), orig<strong>in</strong>ally from Kuz’m<strong>in</strong>a 1993, 135–137):<br />
a. (u njego) syn<br />
(bylo)<br />
otpravleno<br />
at him son.NOM.SG.M. be.N.SG.AUX.PRET. send-away.N.SG.PPP<br />
‘His son has been sent away (by him).’<br />
b. (u njego) parnja<br />
(bylo)<br />
uvedeno<br />
at him fellow.ACC.SG.M. be.N.SG.AUX.PRET. take-away.N.SG.PPP<br />
(2)<br />
‘The guy has been taken away (by him).’<br />
North Russian (Kucerova 2011)<br />
a. *Vot uˇze tre goda kak u nego syn v amerku uvezeno.<br />
here already three years how by him son.NOM to America taken away<br />
b. Vot uˇze tre goda kak u nego syna v amerku uvezeno.<br />
here already three years how by him son.ACC=GEN to america taken away<br />
‘It has been three years s<strong>in</strong>ce his son has been taken away to America.’<br />
1
Proposal: What <strong>the</strong>se two proposals have <strong>in</strong> common is <strong>the</strong> observation that creat<strong>in</strong>g a locality boundary<br />
changes <strong>the</strong> case assignment properties. In <strong>the</strong> N/A system creat<strong>in</strong>g a locality boundary yields emergence of<br />
aspecialmorphologicalmark<strong>in</strong>g(Acc<strong>in</strong>steadof<strong>the</strong>expectedNom).In<strong>the</strong>E/Asystem,creat<strong>in</strong>galocality<br />
boundary yields loss of a special morphological mark<strong>in</strong>g (default or Abs <strong>in</strong>stead of <strong>the</strong>expectedErg).The<br />
question is whe<strong>the</strong>r we can unify <strong>the</strong>se two observations. Crucially, it has been argued that E/A and N/A<br />
languages are not syntactically identical. In particular, <strong>the</strong> v <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> E/A pattern is ei<strong>the</strong>r defective or entirely<br />
miss<strong>in</strong>g (e.g., Marantz 1984, Nash 1995, 1995, Alexiadou 2001). We argue that consequently, vP <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
regular E/A pattern is not a spell-out doma<strong>in</strong>. If we assume, follow<strong>in</strong>g most of <strong>the</strong> current literature that Erg<br />
is assigned by a T head (Infl) while Acc is assigned by v <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g empirical generalization emerges:<br />
(3) A special morphological mark<strong>in</strong>g (Erg, Acc) arises only if <strong>the</strong>m<strong>in</strong>imalspell-outdoma<strong>in</strong>thatconta<strong>in</strong>s<br />
an <strong>in</strong>ternal argument is <strong>the</strong> spell-out doma<strong>in</strong> that conta<strong>in</strong>s <strong>the</strong> head responsible for <strong>the</strong> special<br />
morphological mark<strong>in</strong>g (T for Erg and v for Acc).<br />
In o<strong>the</strong>r words, Acc is possible only if <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal argument is spelled-out with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> vP spell-out doma<strong>in</strong><br />
and Erg is possible only if <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal argument is not spelled out with<strong>in</strong> vP but <strong>in</strong>stead it is spelled-out <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> next phase. Crucially, we have to ensure that Erg would be assign only if <strong>the</strong>re is more than one DP<br />
be<strong>in</strong>g spelled out <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> same doma<strong>in</strong>. Let’s assume that someth<strong>in</strong>g like (4) holds. (A parallel condition<br />
might be needed for enforc<strong>in</strong>g Acc/Dat dist<strong>in</strong>ction <strong>in</strong> double-object constructions but we leave <strong>the</strong> issue of<br />
Dat aside for now.)<br />
(4) Case Dist<strong>in</strong>ctness Condition: Erg is assigned only if <strong>the</strong>re is more than one DP spelled-out <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
same Spell-out doma<strong>in</strong> as <strong>the</strong> head assign<strong>in</strong>g Erg.<br />
Predictions: Under <strong>the</strong> current proposal, splits <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sense of loos<strong>in</strong>g a special mark<strong>in</strong>g depend on <strong>the</strong> size<br />
of <strong>the</strong> syntactic doma<strong>in</strong> (as <strong>in</strong> C&P and K). In contrast to C&P, wepredictthatthistypeofcasesplitshould<br />
not be restricted to E/A but should be equally possible <strong>in</strong> N/A syste<strong>ms</strong>. In particular, we predict that if <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is only one DP <strong>in</strong> a clause, this DP will be assigned Nom if vP is a weak phase (or not a phase at all) or it is<br />
go<strong>in</strong>g to be assigned Acc if it is spelled out with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> vP phase. This prediction see<strong>ms</strong> to be borne out, for<br />
example, <strong>in</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Russian dialects, as we saw <strong>in</strong> (2).<br />
If <strong>the</strong>re is more than one DP <strong>in</strong> a clause, <strong>the</strong> prediction is that none of <strong>the</strong> DPs will get Acc if both DPs will<br />
be spelled out <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> same phase, more precisely with<strong>in</strong> CP phase. If such a structure gets <strong>in</strong>dependently<br />
extended and <strong>the</strong> two DPs get spelled out <strong>in</strong> two separate phases, <strong>the</strong> prediction is that <strong>the</strong> higher one should<br />
be assigned Nom, while <strong>the</strong> lower one should be assigned Acc. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly, this prediction is borne out <strong>in</strong><br />
Arabic nom<strong>in</strong>al copular clauses. In particular, nom<strong>in</strong>al copular clauses <strong>in</strong> Arabic show dist<strong>in</strong>ct case pattern<br />
depend<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> tense of <strong>the</strong> copular clause. As can be seen <strong>in</strong> (5-a), copula-less small clauses show no Acc<br />
assignment. Crucially, as <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ergative split pattern what weseehereisnotaspecialmark<strong>in</strong>gbutalackof<br />
mark<strong>in</strong>g. If <strong>the</strong> structure gets extended, which is presumably <strong>the</strong>caseofPastandFuture<strong>in</strong>(5-b)–(5-c),<strong>the</strong><br />
lower DP gets spelled out <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> vP phase, result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a dist<strong>in</strong>ct case assignment of <strong>the</strong> two DPs.<br />
(5) a. Hassan Tabiib<br />
Hassan.NOM doctor.NOM<br />
‘Hassan is a doctor.’<br />
b. kaan Hassan Tabiib-an<br />
was Hassan.NOM doctor.ACC.INDEF<br />
‘Hassan was a doctor.’<br />
c. Sayakuunu Hassan<br />
be.FUT Hassan.NOM<br />
Tabiib-an<br />
doctor.ACC.INDEF<br />
‘Hassan will be a doctor.’<br />
Conclusion: Case assignment reflects Spell-out properties of a given syntactic structure. Crucially, creat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
aphaseboundaryalternatescasepatternsnotonly<strong>in</strong>E/Alanguages but <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> N/A pattern as well.<br />
2
Dave Kush (Maryland)<br />
On-l<strong>in</strong>e use of relational structural <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g anaphora: evidence from English<br />
and H<strong>in</strong>di<br />
We present results from three experiments that show <strong>the</strong> parser makes rapid use of relational structural<br />
constra<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> memory retrieval.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs on <strong>the</strong> on-l<strong>in</strong>e implementation of grammatical constra<strong>in</strong>ts are an important tool for<br />
understand<strong>in</strong>g how speakers encode and navigate hierarchical syntactic representations <strong>in</strong> memory.<br />
On-l<strong>in</strong>e sensitivity to a structural relation implies that this relation is mentally encoded, and that it is<br />
employed by <strong>the</strong> parser’s dependency-build<strong>in</strong>g mechanis<strong>ms</strong>. Here we <strong>in</strong>vestigate an <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g tension<br />
that arises when compar<strong>in</strong>g different recent f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> psychol<strong>in</strong>guistics. On <strong>the</strong> one hand, a grow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
body of evidence motivates a parser that relies on parallel access mechanis<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong> content addressable<br />
memory [1]. Evidence comes from effects of <strong>in</strong>terference from grammatically illicit licensers [2,3],<br />
and from non-effects of syntactic dependency length [4,5]. Importantly, relational notions such as ccommand<br />
are difficult to exploit <strong>in</strong> such memory architectures, as <strong>the</strong>y are properties of configurations<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>in</strong>herent properties of <strong>in</strong>dividual nodes (‘content’). On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs on <strong>the</strong><br />
apparent immunity-to-<strong>in</strong>terference of local anaphoric b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g suggest that dependencies that obey ccommand<br />
constra<strong>in</strong>ts can be accurately implemented on-l<strong>in</strong>e [6,7,8,9,10]. However, f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs on English<br />
local b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g may be mislead<strong>in</strong>g. English reflexive anaphors require a clause-mate antecedent, and <strong>the</strong>y<br />
follow <strong>the</strong> verb, and so grammatically accurate retrieval might be achieved simply by retriev<strong>in</strong>g a coargument<br />
of <strong>the</strong> immediately preced<strong>in</strong>g verb. Here we present results from three experiments <strong>in</strong> English<br />
and H<strong>in</strong>di that avoid this confound by test<strong>in</strong>g (i) non-local b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g relations that unambiguously <strong>in</strong>volve<br />
c-command constra<strong>in</strong>ts, and (ii) local b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g relations <strong>in</strong> a verb-f<strong>in</strong>al language that must be established<br />
before verb <strong>in</strong>formation is encountered.<br />
Experiments 1 & 2 <strong>in</strong>vestigated <strong>the</strong> parser’s sensitivity to <strong>the</strong> c-command constra<strong>in</strong>t on boundvariable<br />
pronouns. Unlike local reflexive licens<strong>in</strong>g, this constra<strong>in</strong>t on bound-variable pronouns<br />
applies across an unbounded distance, and hence provides a strong test of <strong>the</strong> parser’s use of relational<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> retrieval. We focused on <strong>the</strong> contrast<strong>in</strong>g ability of clauses headed by but and when to host<br />
bound variable pronouns <strong>in</strong> (1-2). The contrast reflects <strong>the</strong> lower attachment site of when-clauses, which<br />
allows any janitor to c-command <strong>the</strong> underl<strong>in</strong>ed pronoun. Importantly, coreference does not require ccommand,<br />
so replac<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> quantified NP with a referential NP (<strong>the</strong> janitor) elim<strong>in</strong>ates <strong>the</strong> contrast.<br />
(1) Kathy didn’t th<strong>in</strong>k that any janitor liked his job, when he had to clean up after <strong>the</strong> prom.<br />
(2) *Kathy didn’t th<strong>in</strong>k that any janitor liked his job, but he had to clean up after <strong>the</strong> prom.<br />
The experiments manipulated <strong>the</strong> type of antecedent (quantificational vs. referential) and <strong>the</strong> structural<br />
relation between <strong>the</strong> antecedent and <strong>the</strong> critical pronoun (WHEN/b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g vs. BUT/no-b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g). 24<br />
sets of ite<strong>ms</strong> were distributed across 4 lists <strong>in</strong> a Lat<strong>in</strong> Square design and comb<strong>in</strong>ed with 64 fillers.<br />
In Experiment 1 (self-paced read<strong>in</strong>g, n=24) immediate sensitivity to <strong>the</strong> c-command constra<strong>in</strong>t was<br />
demonstrated <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>teraction of antecedent-type and structural relation at <strong>the</strong> pronoun (p < .05) 1 , due<br />
to slower read<strong>in</strong>g times <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> quantifier/no-b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g condition. In Experiment 2 (eye-track<strong>in</strong>g, n = 24)<br />
<strong>the</strong> same <strong>in</strong>teraction was found at <strong>the</strong> post-pronoun region (p < .05) <strong>in</strong> re-read, second-pass and total<br />
time measures. This shows that <strong>the</strong> parser is able to rapidly exploit c-command <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> on-l<strong>in</strong>e<br />
dependency formation.<br />
Experiment 3 turned to H<strong>in</strong>di for an additional test of whe<strong>the</strong>r structure-sensitive anaphor<br />
1 All data were fit to a l<strong>in</strong>ear mixed-effects model with subject and item as random effects. P-values were<br />
estimated us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> pvals.fnc() function <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> LanguageR library [11].
process<strong>in</strong>g is cont<strong>in</strong>gent on a verb-based retrieval heuristic, or whe<strong>the</strong>r it is <strong>the</strong> product of general<br />
availability of relational <strong>in</strong>formation. H<strong>in</strong>di reciprocals must be locally licensed [12], like <strong>the</strong>ir English<br />
counterparts, but s<strong>in</strong>ce H<strong>in</strong>di is an SOV language <strong>the</strong>y appear pre-verbally, thus mak<strong>in</strong>g antecedentretrieval<br />
through mediation by <strong>the</strong> verb’s argument structure impossible.<br />
The design of <strong>the</strong> experiment used <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terference logic of previous reflexive studies.<br />
Reciprocals must be bound by a plural-marked, c-command<strong>in</strong>g NP, thus <strong>the</strong> relevant cue for retrieval<br />
is [+plural]. The experiment manipulated plural-mark<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> matrix subject and on a potential<br />
<strong>in</strong>terfer<strong>in</strong>g NP <strong>in</strong> a pre-nom<strong>in</strong>al relative clause that l<strong>in</strong>early preceded <strong>the</strong> reciprocal. The structure of a<br />
test-sentence is given <strong>in</strong> (3) below. When NP1 (<strong>the</strong> matrix subject) is plural it can b<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> reciprocal.<br />
NP2, embedded <strong>in</strong>side an RC (boundaries marked with brackets), cannot grammatically b<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong><br />
reciprocal, regardless of its number.If relational <strong>in</strong>formation is used <strong>in</strong> local licens<strong>in</strong>g, we predict no<br />
effect of plural-mark<strong>in</strong>g on NP2. If verb-mediated retrieval is required to block <strong>in</strong>terference, we expect<br />
<strong>in</strong>terference <strong>in</strong> conditions <strong>in</strong> which NP2 is plural.<br />
(3) NP1{sg/pl} [ ... NP2{sg/pl} ...] ... Reciprocal... {AdvP} V.<br />
An example sentence is given <strong>in</strong> (4). The matrix subject doctor(s) (underl<strong>in</strong>ed below) can b<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong><br />
reciprocal ek-dusre when plural. The potential <strong>in</strong>terferer NP patient(s) (italicized) is embedded <strong>in</strong>side<br />
a pre-verbal RC <strong>the</strong> nurse who took care of <strong>the</strong> patients, thus remov<strong>in</strong>g its ability to c-command (and<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore b<strong>in</strong>d) <strong>the</strong> reciprocal.<br />
(4) Us/un doctor(on)-ne [us/un mariz(on)-ko dekhbal karne wali nurse] ke station me<br />
That/those doctor(s)-ERG that/those patients(s)-ACC care do<strong>in</strong>g RP nurse GEN station <strong>in</strong><br />
ek-dusre ke-saath gupt-ruup-se bat kii.<br />
one-ano<strong>the</strong>r with secretly chat did.<br />
`That/those doctor(s) talked secretly with one ano<strong>the</strong>r at <strong>the</strong> station of <strong>the</strong> nurse who was look<strong>in</strong>g after<br />
<strong>the</strong> patient(s).'<br />
24 sets of ite<strong>ms</strong> were distributed across 4 lists <strong>in</strong> a Lat<strong>in</strong> Square design and comb<strong>in</strong>ed with 50 filler<br />
ite<strong>ms</strong>. The experiment (n=30, native-speakers of H<strong>in</strong>di from Northwestern India, ages 18-26) revealed<br />
immediate sensitivity to <strong>the</strong> constra<strong>in</strong>t on reciprocal licens<strong>in</strong>g. A ma<strong>in</strong> effect of Subject-Number was<br />
observed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> region immediately follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> reciprocal phrase (p
Locality <strong>in</strong> Agreement: A New Approach<br />
Aim. The goal of this talk is to propose a new approach to syntactic structure-build<strong>in</strong>g<br />
that is based upon <strong>the</strong> idea that syntactic derivations are driven by a specificity pr<strong>in</strong>ciple<br />
on merge and agreement. The approach has <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g property that it correctly<br />
derives relative locality effects (i.e., locality effects <strong>in</strong> Merge and Agree that are due to<br />
<strong>in</strong>tervention) without actually <strong>in</strong>vok<strong>in</strong>g closeness-based pr<strong>in</strong>ciples such as <strong>the</strong> M<strong>in</strong>imal<br />
L<strong>in</strong>k Condition. This talk first presents <strong>the</strong> new <strong>the</strong>ory and some of its assets and applications,<br />
but<strong>the</strong>n focusesonaparticular empirical doma<strong>in</strong>: <strong>in</strong>tervention-driven agreement<br />
alternations such as complementarity effects (e.g. complementarity <strong>in</strong> Breton agreement)<br />
and cases of (seem<strong>in</strong>g) optional alternation (e.g. defective <strong>in</strong>tervention <strong>in</strong> Icelandic).<br />
Theoretical Background. Specificity is arguably one of <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> basic concepts of<br />
morphological <strong>the</strong>ory, where is used to resolve competitions between <strong>the</strong> markers of a<br />
language which arise due to underspecification of <strong>in</strong>flectional markers (Subset Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple).<br />
I would like to propose that structure build<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> syntactic derivations, too, is driven by<br />
specificity. The syntactic constra<strong>in</strong>t relevant to <strong>the</strong> local decisions made is <strong>the</strong> General<br />
Specificity Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple, an extension of Maximize Match<strong>in</strong>g Effects (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2001:15):<br />
(1) General Specificity Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple: A Probe undergoes a syntactic operation with <strong>the</strong><br />
most specific match<strong>in</strong>g goal. Specificity is determ<strong>in</strong>ed by card<strong>in</strong>ality of morphosyntactic<br />
features: a set Q is more specific than a set H iff |Q| > |H|.<br />
The GSP has <strong>the</strong> effect that with more than one potential Goal be<strong>in</strong>g available <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
search space of a Probe, <strong>the</strong> Probe always agrees first with <strong>the</strong> Goal with which it can<br />
satisfy <strong>the</strong> highest number of features, even if it is not <strong>the</strong> closest available goal.<br />
Analysis. Let me briefly sketch a specificity-driven derivation for two different Agreement<br />
phenomena: complementarity <strong>in</strong> Breton agreement, and defective <strong>in</strong>tervention <strong>in</strong><br />
Icelandic. Breton shows a complementarity effect <strong>in</strong> that <strong>the</strong> φ-features of a phonologically<br />
null NP are coded by φ-agreement morphology on <strong>the</strong> verb (=‘rich agreement’),<br />
whereas <strong>the</strong> φ-features of a phonologically overt NP are not coded by φ-agreement morphology<br />
on <strong>the</strong> target (‘<strong>in</strong>variant agreement’ [=frozen 3sg agreement or bare stem]):<br />
(2) a. Gant<br />
with<br />
o mamm e karf-ent /*karf-e pro bez-añ<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir mo<strong>the</strong>r r would.love-3pl /*would.love-3sg 3pl be-<strong>in</strong>f<br />
‘They would like to be with <strong>the</strong>ir mo<strong>the</strong>r’<br />
b. Gant<br />
with<br />
Antje Lahne (Konstanz)<br />
o mamm e *karf-ent /karf-e Azenor ha Iona bez-añ<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir mo<strong>the</strong>r r *would.love-3pl /would.love-3sg Azenor and Iona be-<strong>in</strong>f<br />
‘Azenor and Iona would like to be with <strong>the</strong>ir mo<strong>the</strong>r’<br />
Jouitteau & Rezac (2006) analyse <strong>the</strong> complementarity as a locality effect. The start<strong>in</strong>g<br />
po<strong>in</strong>t of <strong>the</strong> analysis is <strong>the</strong> observation that v <strong>in</strong> Breton has nom<strong>in</strong>al properties. It is thus<br />
assumed to bear <strong>in</strong>terpretable 3sg φ-features. Consequently, when I probes for φ-features<br />
<strong>in</strong> its search space, <strong>the</strong>n v <strong>in</strong>tervenes between I and <strong>the</strong> external argument, which is conta<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> vP. I must <strong>the</strong>refore value its unvalued features with φ-features of v, which<br />
results <strong>in</strong> 3sg (‘frozen’) agreement on I. If, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>the</strong> external argument<br />
is an affixal pro, <strong>the</strong>n it <strong>in</strong>corporates <strong>in</strong>to T and thus contributes its φ-features to <strong>the</strong><br />
feature set of T (i.e., it becomes a bound pronoun), which surfaces as rich agreement.<br />
While fully agree<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>corporation analysis, I argue that <strong>the</strong> alleged A-over-A<br />
effect is actually a Specificity effect: The GSP has <strong>the</strong> effect that <strong>the</strong> current probe I has<br />
to handle its selectional feature [•cat:v•] by merg<strong>in</strong>g with a v-type element; due to <strong>the</strong><br />
1
GSP, Agree between I and v must <strong>in</strong>volve handl<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> maximal number of match<strong>in</strong>g<br />
features. Thus, if I has more features (φ-features: [*pers*], [*num*]) that it can value<br />
with a feature of v, <strong>the</strong>n it must value it with v. This is illustrated <strong>in</strong> (3).<br />
(3) a. b.<br />
I ′<br />
I o<br />
[•v•, *φ*]<br />
x<br />
vP<br />
DP v ′<br />
v o ...<br />
I o<br />
[•v•, *φ*]<br />
I ′<br />
vP<br />
DP v ′<br />
v o ...<br />
A second type of data that can be expla<strong>in</strong>ed by means of specificity are cases of apparant<br />
<strong>in</strong>decisiveness, namely when <strong>the</strong>re aretwo goalsthat <strong>the</strong>probecanagreewith <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong>same<br />
number of features. I argue that this constellation leads to alternation. One example is<br />
defective <strong>in</strong>tervention <strong>in</strong> Icelandic (Holmberg & Hróarsdóttir 2004):<br />
(4) Mér f<strong>in</strong>nst/f<strong>in</strong>nast tölvurnar ljótar<br />
me.dat f<strong>in</strong>d.sg/f<strong>in</strong>d.pl computers:def.nom.pl ugly<br />
‘I consider <strong>the</strong> computers ugly’<br />
In brief, <strong>the</strong> approach to <strong>the</strong>se data is that I o has three k<strong>in</strong>ds of prob<strong>in</strong>g features: <strong>the</strong><br />
EPP feature, <strong>the</strong> set of phi-features, and <strong>the</strong> case feature [∗nom∗]. However, <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />
constituent that I o can handle all three features with – it cannot use <strong>the</strong> EPP feature on<br />
<strong>the</strong> lower DP tölvurnar (as it is an argument of <strong>the</strong> embedded predicate), and nei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
can it assign nom<strong>in</strong>ative case to <strong>the</strong> dative subject mér – but it is possible to use two<br />
of <strong>the</strong> three features on one goal, and <strong>the</strong> rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g feature on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r goal. There<br />
are two possible orders <strong>in</strong> which this can be done. I would like to propose that <strong>the</strong><br />
order of operations is optional, and that both orders are attested: one order leads to <strong>the</strong><br />
s<strong>in</strong>gular agreement option, <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r leads to plural agreement. The features [•D•] and<br />
[*nom*] cannot be handled toge<strong>the</strong>r, as <strong>the</strong> EPP feature cannot be used on <strong>the</strong> lower<br />
DP. This leaves two possible feature comb<strong>in</strong>ations: One possibility is to handle two of <strong>the</strong><br />
three features, [•D•] and [n:�], with <strong>the</strong> dative argument, and subsequently us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g feature [*case:nom*] on <strong>the</strong> lower DP. As a result, I shows s<strong>in</strong>gular agreement.<br />
The second possibility is to use [*case:nom*] and [n:�] on <strong>the</strong> lower DP, and <strong>the</strong>n handle<br />
[•D•] with <strong>the</strong> quirky subject. The verb consequently shows plural agreement.<br />
Consequences. The new approach yields new <strong>in</strong>sights <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> work<strong>in</strong>gs of locality <strong>in</strong><br />
Agreement: Agreement alternations arise due to extremely local decisions about feature<br />
handl<strong>in</strong>g made dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> derivation; <strong>the</strong>se decisions are driven by <strong>the</strong> need of probes to<br />
match with a goal as fully as possible, disregard<strong>in</strong>g structural distances. Optionalities<br />
arise when this need can be resolved <strong>in</strong> more than one way. L<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g this <strong>in</strong>sight to <strong>the</strong><br />
f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs presented at <strong>the</strong> beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> talk, I would like to go one step fur<strong>the</strong>r and<br />
propose that Specificity, not Closeness, is <strong>the</strong> core pr<strong>in</strong>ciple that drives derivations and<br />
yields relative locality <strong>in</strong> Merge and Agree.<br />
References. Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky, Noam (2001): Derivation by Phase. In: M. Kenstowicz, ed.,<br />
Ken Hale: A Life <strong>in</strong> Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 1-52. Holmberg,<br />
Anders & Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir (2004): Agreement and movement <strong>in</strong> Icelandic rais<strong>in</strong>g<br />
constructions, L<strong>in</strong>gua 114(5), 651-673. Jouitteau, Mélanie & Milan Rezac (2006): Deriv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> Complementarity Effect: Relativized M<strong>in</strong>imality <strong>in</strong> Breton Agreement, L<strong>in</strong>gua<br />
116(11), 1915-1945.<br />
2
Mohamed Lahrouchi (CNRS/Paris 8)<br />
Phasal Spellout and <strong>the</strong> glide – high vowel alternation <strong>in</strong> Berber<br />
Berber languages present a wealth of <strong>in</strong>tricate phonological alternations <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
glides and high vowels, some of which still resist standard phonological analyses. These<br />
alternations shed light on <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>d of <strong>in</strong>ter-modular communication, which many current<br />
<strong>in</strong>terface <strong>the</strong>ories address.<br />
Glides typically appear <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> immediate vic<strong>in</strong>ity of a vowel, <strong>in</strong> complementary<br />
distribution with <strong>the</strong> correspond<strong>in</strong>g high vowels. Based on this k<strong>in</strong>d of observations, standard<br />
<strong>the</strong>ories analyse glides and high vowels as phonetic reflexes of <strong>the</strong> same underly<strong>in</strong>g segments.<br />
The examples <strong>in</strong> (1) illustrate <strong>the</strong> situation <strong>in</strong> Tashlhiyt Berber:<br />
(1)<br />
gru ‘pick up’ agraw ‘assembly’<br />
bri ‘crush, pound’ abraj ‘crushed seeds’<br />
The problem arises with <strong>the</strong> correspond<strong>in</strong>g dative for<strong>ms</strong> grujas ‘pick to him’ and brijas<br />
‘crush seeds to him’. Followed by a vowel-<strong>in</strong>itial morpheme –as, U and I should normally<br />
surface as glides, lead<strong>in</strong>g to *grwas and *brjas. Faced with similar for<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong> Tamazight Berber<br />
Guerssel (1986: 3) posits “a phonemic dist<strong>in</strong>ction between glides and high vowels”.<br />
The key to understand<strong>in</strong>g this paradox lies, we argue, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> morpho-syntactic<br />
structure of dative formations. In l<strong>in</strong>e with recent works at <strong>the</strong> syntax – phonology <strong>in</strong>terface<br />
(Marv<strong>in</strong> 2002, Marantz 2007, Pigott and Newell 2006, Samuels 2010), we argue that <strong>the</strong><br />
behaviour of I and U <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> for<strong>ms</strong> just discussed is <strong>the</strong> result of <strong>the</strong> application of spell-out<br />
and phase impenetrability condition (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2001) at different levels <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> syntactic<br />
structure. In particular, we show that vP corresponds to a phase where U and I are spelled-out<br />
as high vowels before <strong>the</strong> enclitic –as is added. The result<strong>in</strong>g hiatus is <strong>the</strong>n resolved by means<br />
of j epen<strong>the</strong>sis, lead<strong>in</strong>g to grujas and brijas. In agraw and abraj, U and I surface as glides s<strong>in</strong>ce<br />
<strong>the</strong>y belong to <strong>the</strong> same phase (nP) as <strong>the</strong> neighbour<strong>in</strong>g a. The for<strong>ms</strong> represented <strong>in</strong> (2)<br />
illustrate <strong>the</strong> proposal:<br />
(2) a. grujas "pick to him" b. agraw ‘assembly’<br />
Spell-out-as-you-merge and Phase Impenetrability thus allow expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
paradoxical behaviour of I and U <strong>in</strong> Tashlhiyt Berber (see also Pigott and Newell 2006 about<br />
Ojibwa). The question that arises <strong>the</strong>n is <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g: under <strong>the</strong> assumption that phonology<br />
is sensitive to external morph-syntactic <strong>in</strong>formation, what k<strong>in</strong>d of devices allows direct <strong>in</strong>termodular<br />
communication? Do morpho-syntactic phases leave any phonological traces?<br />
Follow<strong>in</strong>g Scheer (2011), we will assume that empty CV units, purely phonological objects
(Lowenstamm 1996, 1999), carry morpho-syntactic <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong>to phonology. They mark<br />
phase boundaries. How does phonology use <strong>the</strong>se empty CVs is an issue we will discuss.<br />
References<br />
Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life <strong>in</strong> Language, edited by<br />
Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.<br />
Dell, François & Mohamed Elmedlaoui. 2002. Syllables <strong>in</strong> Tashlhiyt Berber and <strong>in</strong> Moroccan<br />
Arabic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.<br />
Guerssel, Mohand. 1986. Glides <strong>in</strong> Berber and Syllabicity. L<strong>in</strong>guistic Inquiry 17-1: 1-12.<br />
Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. CV as <strong>the</strong> only syllable type. In Current trends <strong>in</strong> Phonology.<br />
Models and Methods, edited by Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks, 419-441.<br />
Salford, Manchester: ESRI.<br />
Lowenstamm, Jean. 1999. The beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> word. In Phonologica 1996, edited by John<br />
Rennison & Klaus Kühnhammer, 153-166. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.<br />
Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and Words. In Phases <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Theory of Gramma, edited by Sook-<br />
Hee Choe, 191-222. Seoul: Dong In.<br />
Marv<strong>in</strong>, Tatjana. 2002. Topics <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Stress and Syntax of Words. Ph.D dissertation, MIT.<br />
Piggott, Glyne & Hea<strong>the</strong>r Newell. 2006. Syllabification and <strong>the</strong> Spell-Out of Phases <strong>in</strong><br />
Ojibwa Words. McGill Work<strong>in</strong>g Papers <strong>in</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> 20.2: 39-64.<br />
Samuels, Bridget. 2010. Phonological Derivation by Phase: Evidence from Basque.<br />
University of Pennsylvania Work<strong>in</strong>g Papers <strong>in</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> 16: 166-175.<br />
Scheer, Tobias. 2011. A Guide to Morphosyntax – Phonology Interface Theories. Berl<strong>in</strong>:<br />
Mouton de Gruyter.<br />
Uriagereka, Juan 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Work<strong>in</strong>g M<strong>in</strong>imalism, edited by Samuel Epste<strong>in</strong><br />
& Norbert Hornste<strong>in</strong>, 251-282. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chris Laterza (Maryland)<br />
Gaps with<strong>in</strong> Silence<br />
This talk provides a novel account of <strong>the</strong> role of traces <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> licens<strong>in</strong>g conditions for VP ellipsis<br />
(VPE). As I will show, this approach unifies <strong>the</strong> licens<strong>in</strong>g conditions for canonical VPE with<br />
related phenomena such as pseudogapp<strong>in</strong>g and ACD, a task that has been attempted <strong>in</strong> several<br />
different ways s<strong>in</strong>ce at least as early as Lapp<strong>in</strong> (1992). Assum<strong>in</strong>g that VPE is PF deletion<br />
licensed by LF identity (an approach pursued, for example, by Sag (1976) and Kennedy (2003)),<br />
my ma<strong>in</strong> claim (<strong>in</strong>formally put) is that traces <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ellipsis clause (EC) act as “wildcard” element<br />
for <strong>the</strong> determ<strong>in</strong>ation of identity; just so long as <strong>the</strong>re is a DP/PP <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> antecedent clause (AC)<br />
VP occupy<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> same type of argument/adjunct position as <strong>the</strong> trace <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> EC VP, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> that<br />
AC DP/PP and <strong>the</strong> EC trace count as identical for <strong>the</strong> purposes of licens<strong>in</strong>g VPE, even if <strong>the</strong> LF<br />
content of <strong>the</strong> AC DP/PP is not identical to that of <strong>the</strong> DP/PP which moved from <strong>the</strong> position of<br />
<strong>the</strong> trace <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> EC. To illustrate, take <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stance of VPE:<br />
(1) John [VP met Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky at WCCFL]. Guess who1 Bill did [VP meet t1 at WCCFL].<br />
A more str<strong>in</strong>gent approach to ellipsis licens<strong>in</strong>g would have a hard time expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g (without ad<br />
hoc str<strong>in</strong>g vacuous movement) how VPE is licensed <strong>in</strong> (1), s<strong>in</strong>ce [Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky] is not identical to<br />
[t1] nor [who1] <strong>in</strong> any approach to VPE (previous versions of PF deletion, LF copy<strong>in</strong>g, pro-form<br />
VPs, etc.). However, <strong>the</strong> relaxed approach to identity offered here treats (1) as a licit case of<br />
VPE: almost everyth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> AC and EC VPs are LF-identical, <strong>the</strong> sole exception be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
direct objects, and s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> object <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> EC is a trace, it counts as identical with [Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky] <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> AC under this approach and thus ellipsis is licensed. The rema<strong>in</strong>der of <strong>the</strong> abstract provides<br />
some o<strong>the</strong>r examples of this approach at work.<br />
PSEUDOGAPPING: The present approach fits well with a popular treatment of pseudogapp<strong>in</strong>g<br />
(as argued for by Jayaseelan (1990) and Lasnik (1999)) which states that pseudogapp<strong>in</strong>g is<br />
extraction of <strong>the</strong> "survivor" from <strong>the</strong> VP followed by VPE, as shown <strong>in</strong> (2). This creates a<br />
configuration that is short of full LF-identity between <strong>the</strong> AC and EC VPs, though it is one that<br />
falls with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> purview of <strong>the</strong> current approach and counts as a licit case of VPE, s<strong>in</strong>ce t1 will<br />
match [on <strong>the</strong> porch] under <strong>the</strong> current approach, even though t1 is a trace of [<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> gazebo].<br />
(2) John [VP read a book on <strong>the</strong> porch this morn<strong>in</strong>g], while Bill did (so) [VP read a<br />
book t1 this morn<strong>in</strong>g] [PP <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> gazebo]1<br />
ACD: Virtually all analyses of relative clause formation <strong>in</strong>volve some sort of movement from<br />
<strong>the</strong> relativization site to some A'-position. Therefore, it is typical to treat cases of ACD as<br />
<strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g a trace <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> EC VP (whenever <strong>the</strong> relativization site is with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> VP). Under <strong>the</strong><br />
present approach, (3) is licensed s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> AC VP = [read [DP few books that Bill did]] and <strong>the</strong><br />
EC VP = [read t1], and t1 will match any direct object DP <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> AC clause, even if it is complex<br />
and conta<strong>in</strong>s <strong>the</strong> trace itself.<br />
(3) John [VP read few (of <strong>the</strong>) books Op1 that Bill did [VP read t1 ] ]<br />
While some argue that <strong>the</strong>re is QR <strong>in</strong> (3), <strong>the</strong>reby mak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> current approach unnecessary for<br />
cases of ACD, <strong>the</strong>re are some cases where <strong>the</strong> content of <strong>the</strong> determ<strong>in</strong>er matters for VPE<br />
licens<strong>in</strong>g, and thus it must somehow be represented with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> VP. We can see this <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> non-<br />
ACD (4), as <strong>the</strong> content of <strong>the</strong> EC is clearly that Bill read few books.<br />
(4) John read few (of <strong>the</strong>) books, and Bill did [VP read few (of <strong>the</strong>) books] too<br />
If QR is present <strong>in</strong> (4), leav<strong>in</strong>g a trace <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> VP that is devoid of any content (an assumption<br />
made by May (1985) for QR to deal with <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite regress), <strong>the</strong>n it is surpris<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong><br />
determ<strong>in</strong>er’s mean<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> aspect of “fewness”, is relevant for VPE. (3) differs from (4) <strong>in</strong> that<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is no DP movement out of <strong>the</strong> VP <strong>in</strong> (4), for if <strong>the</strong>re were, we are left without an<br />
explanation for why <strong>the</strong> DP’s mean<strong>in</strong>g is recovered <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> EC VP <strong>in</strong> (4). Thus, (4) has stricter
identity conditions than <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of (3) which <strong>in</strong>volves a trace <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> relativization site, which<br />
lightens <strong>the</strong> identity conditions under <strong>the</strong> present approach; i.e., <strong>the</strong> semantic content of <strong>the</strong> direct<br />
object’s determ<strong>in</strong>er matters for VPE licens<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> (4) but not <strong>in</strong> (3). From what I can tell, <strong>the</strong><br />
observation of <strong>the</strong> asymmetry above between (3) and (4) (whe<strong>the</strong>r or not determ<strong>in</strong>er mean<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
matter for VPE) brought about by non-universal determ<strong>in</strong>ers is novel, and is expla<strong>in</strong>ed by <strong>the</strong><br />
present account of traces <strong>in</strong> VPE identity conditions. It is also noteworthy that <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite regress<br />
problem is no problem at all for <strong>the</strong> current approach, s<strong>in</strong>ce VPE licens<strong>in</strong>g does not require <strong>the</strong><br />
content of <strong>the</strong> AC direct object <strong>in</strong> (3) to be represented <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> position of <strong>the</strong> trace <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> EC.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>r support for <strong>the</strong> AC direct object <strong>in</strong> (3) not be<strong>in</strong>g represented <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> EC aga<strong>in</strong> comes from<br />
<strong>the</strong> paradigm above <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g a proportional determ<strong>in</strong>er; if <strong>the</strong> AC direct object were represented<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> EC <strong>in</strong> (3) (mak<strong>in</strong>g it relevant for VPE licens<strong>in</strong>g), <strong>the</strong>n why is <strong>the</strong> aspect of "fewness"<br />
miss<strong>in</strong>g from this clause, <strong>in</strong> a way that it is clearly present <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> non-ACD (4)? This account is<br />
conceptually similar to Wyngaerd and Zwart (1991) <strong>in</strong> that both try to account for ellipsis<br />
licens<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> ACD constructions without be<strong>in</strong>g dependent on QR.<br />
SPROUTING: Sprout<strong>in</strong>g (Chung et al. (1995)) is when, <strong>in</strong> a case of sluic<strong>in</strong>g, a DP/PP that was<br />
not present <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> AC appears overtly <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ellipsis clause (typically as a wh-expression).<br />
(5) John saw The Lion K<strong>in</strong>g, but I don't know where<br />
(6) There navy seals were fir<strong>in</strong>g, but at what is unclear<br />
(7) Mary f<strong>in</strong>ished <strong>the</strong> exam on time, but with whose help is unclear<br />
However, <strong>the</strong> possibility of sprout<strong>in</strong>g see<strong>ms</strong> to be limited to cases of sluic<strong>in</strong>g. (8-10) below<br />
show that <strong>the</strong> acceptability of sprout<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> cases of VPE is severely degraded. Unacceptability of<br />
sprout<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> cases of VPE is, to <strong>the</strong> best of my knowledge, a novel empirical observation.<br />
(8) *John saw The Lion K<strong>in</strong>g. I wonder where Bill did<br />
(9) *The navy seals were fir<strong>in</strong>g, but at what <strong>the</strong> green berets were is unclear<br />
(10) *Mary f<strong>in</strong>ished <strong>the</strong> exam on time, but with whose help did Susan<br />
(Notice that <strong>the</strong> subject DPs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ECs are different from those <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir respective ACs <strong>in</strong> order<br />
to rule out MaxElide as be<strong>in</strong>g responsible for <strong>the</strong> unacceptability; see Hartman (2011).) The<br />
present approach can easily account for unacceptability of (8-10). Consider a case like (8): <strong>the</strong><br />
AC VP = [saw The Lion K<strong>in</strong>g], and <strong>the</strong> EC VP = [saw The Lion K<strong>in</strong>g t]; <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />
correspond<strong>in</strong>g locative PP <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> AC for <strong>the</strong> t <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> EC to match, hence (8) is not a licit case of<br />
VPE under <strong>the</strong> present approach s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> LF-identity conditions are not met. It is unclear to me<br />
why sprout<strong>in</strong>g would be acceptable <strong>in</strong> cases of sluic<strong>in</strong>g and not VPE, and it is worth po<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g out<br />
that <strong>the</strong> fact that sprout<strong>in</strong>g is allowed <strong>in</strong> cases of sluic<strong>in</strong>g is precisely why this account is limited<br />
to VPE and cannot be extended to IP ellipsis. Perhaps sprout<strong>in</strong>g is just ano<strong>the</strong>r way <strong>in</strong> which<br />
sluic<strong>in</strong>g and VPE differ, on par with as Chung et al.’s (1995) observation that while sluic<strong>in</strong>g can<br />
repair island violations, VPE cannot.<br />
References: Chung, S. et al. 1995. Sluic<strong>in</strong>g and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3:<br />
239-282. Jayaseelan. K.A. 1990. Incomplete VP deletion and gapp<strong>in</strong>g. L<strong>in</strong>guistic Analysis 20:<br />
64-81. Kennedy, C. 2003 Ellipsis and syntactic representation. In The Interfaces: deriv<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g omitted structures. Hartman, J. 2011. The semantic uniformity of traces: evidence<br />
from ellipsis parallelism. L<strong>in</strong>guistic Inquiry 42.3: 367-388. Lapp<strong>in</strong>, S. 1992. The syntactic basis<br />
of ellipsis resolution. In Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong> Stuttgart Workshop on Ellipsis. Lasnik, H. 1999.<br />
Pseudogapp<strong>in</strong>g puzzles. In Fragments: Studies <strong>in</strong> ellipsis and gapp<strong>in</strong>g, 141-174. May, R. 1985.<br />
Logical Form. Cambridge: MIT Press. Sag, I. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. PhD diss., MIT.<br />
Wyngaerd, G. V., and J.-W. Zwart. 1991. Reconstruction and Vehicle Change. In <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands, 151-160.
Timothy Leffel (NYU)<br />
Nonrestrictive adjectives and <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of scalar implicature<br />
Summary Nonrestrictive adjectives (NAs) attribute a general property to <strong>in</strong>dividuals <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
denotation of <strong>the</strong> adjacent noun (Larson & Maruˇsič 2004; Morzycki 2008; etc.).<br />
(1) a. Cigarettes conta<strong>in</strong> harmful tox<strong>in</strong>s. b. ∴ Tox<strong>in</strong>s are (generally) harmful.<br />
Nom<strong>in</strong>al modifiers typically give rise to implicatures <strong>in</strong> downward entail<strong>in</strong>g contexts ((2)). Correspond<strong>in</strong>g<br />
implicatures are not triggered by NAs ((3)).<br />
(2) a. Every harmful chemical will be elim<strong>in</strong>ated by this product.<br />
b. � Not every chemical will be elim<strong>in</strong>ated by this product.<br />
(3) a. Every harmful tox<strong>in</strong> will be elim<strong>in</strong>ated by this product.<br />
b. �� Not every tox<strong>in</strong> will be elim<strong>in</strong>ated by this product.<br />
Here I argue that <strong>the</strong> contrast between (2) and (3) is not due to <strong>the</strong> contextual knowledge that<br />
tox<strong>in</strong>s are generally harmful. First I argue that scalar alternatives should be computed structurally<br />
(Katzir 2007) and excludability should be computed without access to contextual <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
(Magri 2009). I <strong>the</strong>n suggest that NAs <strong>in</strong> non-def<strong>in</strong>ite DPs comb<strong>in</strong>e with nouns via<br />
a presupposition-<strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g functional head <strong>in</strong> C<strong>in</strong>que’s (2010) “direct modification” doma<strong>in</strong><br />
(build<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>in</strong>sights of Larson 1998;2000). This correctly predicts <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ference <strong>in</strong> (3) to be<br />
<strong>in</strong>valid because (3a) has a presupposition that <strong>the</strong> negation of (3b) lacks (details below).<br />
Background on SI The computation of a sentence’s scalar implicatures (SIs) depends on what<br />
<strong>the</strong> alternatives to that sentence are. In “Horn scale”-based approaches (e.g. Gazdar 1979;<br />
Sauerland 2004), alternatives are obta<strong>in</strong>ed by replac<strong>in</strong>g scalar ter<strong>ms</strong> with “scalemates,” so that<br />
(4a) and (4b) are alternatives to one ano<strong>the</strong>r (s<strong>in</strong>ce 〈some,all〉 is a Horn scale).<br />
(4) a. John ate some of <strong>the</strong> beans. b. John ate all of <strong>the</strong> beans.<br />
SIs are <strong>the</strong>n computed on <strong>the</strong> basis of whe<strong>the</strong>r an alternative is excludable <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sense that<br />
its negation asymmetrically entails what is asserted. If an alternative is excludable, <strong>the</strong>n its<br />
negation is a predicted SI (details differ from <strong>the</strong>ory to <strong>the</strong>ory). Scale-based approaches do not<br />
predict implicatures to arise from <strong>in</strong>tersective modifiers as <strong>in</strong> (2), s<strong>in</strong>ce nouns like chemical are<br />
not on a lexical scale with harmful chemical.<br />
Katzir’s (2007) structural <strong>the</strong>ory of alternatives provides a natural explanation for (2) while<br />
ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>sights of scale-based approaches. Alternatives are determ<strong>in</strong>ed syntactically: given<br />
a sentence ϕ, ψ ∈ Alt(ϕ) iff ψ can be obta<strong>in</strong>ed from ϕ by a f<strong>in</strong>ite series of (i) deletions of constituents,<br />
(ii) contractions (remove tree edge and identify end nodes), and (iii) substitutions of<br />
term<strong>in</strong>al elements for o<strong>the</strong>r elements (which are ei<strong>the</strong>r lexical or are subtrees of ϕ) of <strong>the</strong> same<br />
(syntactic) category. In this framework excludability is def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of a better-than relation<br />
≺. ϕ is at least as good (�) as ψ iff ϕ is an alternative to ψ and ϕ entails ψ. If ϕ � ψ but<br />
ψ �� ϕ, <strong>the</strong>n ϕ is strictly better (≺) than ψ. Equivalently, ϕ ≺ ψ iff<br />
(5) a. ϕ is an alternative to ψ and entails ψ; and ei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
b. ψ is not an alternative to ϕ, or ψ does not entail ϕ.<br />
Determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g excludability The better-than relation <strong>in</strong> (5) makes crucial reference to “entailment.”<br />
Two candidate def<strong>in</strong>itions of “entailment” are: (from Magri 2009)<br />
(6) a. ϕ logically entails ψ iff �ϕ� ⊆ �ψ�<br />
b. ϕ contextually entails ψ iff (�ϕ� ∩C) ⊆ �ψ�, where C is <strong>the</strong> Context Set.
Magri (2009;2011) argues that (6a) is <strong>the</strong> notion of entailment relevant for comput<strong>in</strong>g SIs—this<br />
is called <strong>the</strong> “bl<strong>in</strong>dness hypo<strong>the</strong>sis” (BH) because it says that SIs are computed without access<br />
to world knowledge. BH is crucial <strong>in</strong>, e.g. captur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> oddness of #Some Italians come from a<br />
warm country: it triggers <strong>the</strong> bl<strong>in</strong>d implicature that not all Italians come from a warm country.<br />
I propose that BH is required for <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of structural alternatives to work. The argument<br />
is based on <strong>the</strong> existence of lexical ite<strong>ms</strong> whose sole function is to <strong>in</strong>troduce a presupposition:<br />
(7) Context: It is mutually known that several people o<strong>the</strong>r than Mary came to <strong>the</strong> party.<br />
a. Mary came to <strong>the</strong> party too. b. Mary came to <strong>the</strong> party.<br />
Given <strong>the</strong> contextual <strong>in</strong>formation, (7a) and (7b) are equivalent. Therefore if entailment is def<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
as <strong>in</strong> (6b), it follows that (7b)≺(7a), because (7b) is an alternative to (7a), but (7a) is not<br />
an alternative to (7b) (see (5)). Hence an utterance of (7a) is <strong>in</strong>correctly predicted to give rise to<br />
<strong>the</strong> implicature that (7b) is not assertable. This argument can be replicated for also, even, etc.<br />
If <strong>in</strong>stead logical entailment (=(6a)) is used <strong>in</strong> (5), <strong>the</strong>n (7b) is not predicted to be strictly<br />
better than (7a), because:<br />
(8) a. (7b) is an alternative to (7a) (delete too and contract its branch), but<br />
b. (7b) does not logically entail (7a), s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>re are logically consistent worlds <strong>in</strong><br />
which Mary came to <strong>the</strong> party and no one else did.<br />
and hence an utterance of (7a) is correctly predicted to not give rise to <strong>the</strong> implicature that (7b)<br />
is not assertable. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, logical entailment must be computed relative to local contexts (see<br />
Schlenker 2009), s<strong>in</strong>ce if entailment were computed globally, <strong>the</strong>n (9a) should be dispreferred<br />
to (9b), s<strong>in</strong>ce (9a) has no global presupposition.<br />
(9) a. John came to <strong>the</strong> party, and Mary came to <strong>the</strong> party too.<br />
b. John came to <strong>the</strong> party, and Mary came to <strong>the</strong> party.<br />
Nonrestrictive read<strong>in</strong>gs NR read<strong>in</strong>gs of attributive adjectives are licensed only <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> syntactic<br />
positions, which may vary depend<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> language (Bol<strong>in</strong>ger 1967; C<strong>in</strong>que 2010).<br />
(10) a. Every unsuitable word was deleted. ✓Rest. ✓NR<br />
b. Every word unsuitable was deleted. ✓Rest. ✗NR<br />
C<strong>in</strong>que (2010) has argued that NAs are <strong>in</strong>troduced as <strong>the</strong> specifiers of a DP-<strong>in</strong>ternal functional<br />
head <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> “direct modification” doma<strong>in</strong>, which <strong>in</strong> English is immediately above NP but below<br />
a doma<strong>in</strong> of reduced relative clause adjectives with <strong>in</strong>tersective semantics. Larson (1998;2000)<br />
notes that many adjectives <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> direct modification doma<strong>in</strong> are associated with generic <strong>in</strong>terpretation.<br />
I propose that NAs are also associated with genericity. The functional head that<br />
<strong>in</strong>troduces NAs (GENNR) is assigned <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g semantics, which encodes <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ference <strong>in</strong><br />
(1b) as a presupposition (“:” <strong>in</strong>dicates def<strong>in</strong>edness condition, Γ is a generic quantifier).<br />
(11) GENNR : λPλQλy : Γx[P(x)][Q(x)].P(y)<br />
If harmful and tox<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> (3a) comb<strong>in</strong>e via (11), <strong>the</strong>n (3a) presupposes that tox<strong>in</strong>s are generically<br />
harmful. The structural alternative Every tox<strong>in</strong> will be... to (3a) does not have this presupposition,<br />
and so does not logically entail (3a) (by reason<strong>in</strong>g along <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>es of (8)). Therefore <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>ference from (3a) to (3b) is correctly predicted to be <strong>in</strong>valid. This explanation is not available<br />
to any pragmatic <strong>the</strong>ory of NR read<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />
Selected references C<strong>in</strong>que, G. 2010. The syntax of adjectives • Katzir, R. 2007. Structurallydef<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
alternatives. L&P. • Larson, R. 1998. Events and modification <strong>in</strong> nom<strong>in</strong>als. SALT<br />
8. • Magri, G. 2009. A <strong>the</strong>ory of <strong>in</strong>dividual-level predicates based on bl<strong>in</strong>d mandatory scalar<br />
implicatures. NaLS. • Sauerland, U. 2004. Scalar implicatures <strong>in</strong> complex sentences. L&P.
Shevaun Lewis (Maryland) & W<strong>in</strong>g Yee Chow (Maryland)<br />
!<br />
" # $<br />
' $ " $<br />
% &<br />
" ( )<br />
"! * ! ! !<br />
" " $ !<br />
!<br />
! $ "<br />
" % )<br />
$ $ !<br />
+ $<br />
! !<br />
" (<br />
, ! " "<br />
! " $<br />
" !<br />
) !<br />
$ - .! !<br />
$ ! -<br />
$<br />
"! . . /0 $ $ $<br />
1 " 2 3<br />
$ ! $ # #<br />
! $ " " " $<br />
$ $<br />
" + $<br />
/ !3 $ " "<br />
+ " " $ $<br />
+ $ " $ $<br />
4 5 $ "<br />
" ! "<br />
$ ! , ! "<br />
"! ! 5 $ $<br />
" $<br />
6<br />
" ( ! " "!<br />
' $ !<br />
+ ! "<br />
! $<br />
$<br />
$ " - $ -<br />
$ " + "
! " 1 2<br />
" $ !<br />
+ / 3 $<br />
" $ /7 83 , " - / "9 3 + " -<br />
/ "9 3 $ ! " "9 / 3<br />
/ 3 5 :; < = :* = "<br />
$<br />
/ "3 :; < = : < = "<br />
$<br />
/ 3 5 :; < = : < = $<br />
$ $ "<br />
$<br />
) " "9 ! $ "<br />
, " > ! $ + ; $<br />
" "9 $ $ + " "9<br />
- > ! !<br />
" $ ! $<br />
* # ! ! $<br />
? ! $ " ! + "<br />
, " /<br />
3<br />
+ $ /<br />
; " 3 )<br />
" , " > $ "<br />
+ " > $<br />
0 # ! " !<br />
$ "!<br />
+ ! $<br />
$ " $ )<br />
! + " ! @<br />
) "!<br />
" " ( " ; ! !<br />
!<br />
" " ! ! /<br />
3 " " ! !<br />
" " /<br />
; 3 " $ !<br />
/; " 3 6 $ !<br />
"<br />
. # A " / BB 3 C &4C &%D<br />
E / BB 3 4D<br />
- A $ ! / DCD3 C D<br />
4 ? E A , " / DD43 % &% D<br />
F A ) / BB43 G "<br />
% / BB 3 4C 4 %<br />
& H I A / BBD3 BC 4B
Charles L<strong>in</strong> (Indiana)<br />
Typological Perspectives on Relative Clause Process<strong>in</strong>g: Thematic Mapp<strong>in</strong>g, Case<br />
Markedness, Filler-Gap Integrations, and Their Relative Tim<strong>in</strong>g<br />
It is well-known that <strong>in</strong> head-<strong>in</strong>itial languages, relative clauses <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g subject<br />
extractions are processed with greater ease than those <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g object extractions (Brazilian<br />
Portuguese: Gouvea, 2003; Dutch: Frazier, 1987b; English: Ford, 1983, Gibson, Desmet,<br />
Grodner, Watson, & Ko, 2005, K<strong>in</strong>g & Just, 1991, K<strong>in</strong>g & Kutas, 1995, Traxler, Morris, &<br />
Seely, 2002; French: Cohen & Mehler, 1996, Frauenfelder, Segui, & Mehler, 1980, Holmes<br />
& O’Regan, 1981; German: Meckl<strong>in</strong>ger, Schriefers, Ste<strong>in</strong>hauer, & Friederici, 1995,<br />
Schriefers, Friederici, & Kuhn, 1995). In <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of relative clauses that are headf<strong>in</strong>al,<br />
however, <strong>the</strong> effect has been <strong>in</strong>consistent. Easier comprehension of subject relative<br />
clauses has been reported <strong>in</strong> Japanese (Miyamoto & Nakamura, 2003; Ueno & Garnsey,<br />
2008), Korean (Kwon, Lee, Gordon, Kluender, & Pol<strong>in</strong>sky, 2010), Mandar<strong>in</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese (L<strong>in</strong> &<br />
Bever, 2006) and Turkish (Kahraman, Sato, Ono & Sakai, 2010), while easier process<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
object relative clauses has been reported <strong>in</strong> Basque (Carreiras, Duñabeitia, Vergara, de la<br />
Cruz-Pavía, & Laka, 2010), Japanese (Ishizuka, Nakatani, & Gibson, 2006) and Mandar<strong>in</strong><br />
Ch<strong>in</strong>ese (Hsiao & Gibson, 2003; Gibson & Wu, 2011; Packard, Ye, & Zhou, 2011).<br />
Research so far mostly assumed that <strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> relativized gap and <strong>the</strong> head noun<br />
(i.e., <strong>the</strong> filler) is critical to relative clause process<strong>in</strong>g. A distance-based account has been<br />
adopted to account for <strong>the</strong> subject-object asymmetries <strong>in</strong> relative clause process<strong>in</strong>g across<br />
languages. The distance between <strong>the</strong> filler and <strong>the</strong> gap has been counted l<strong>in</strong>early based on <strong>the</strong><br />
number of <strong>in</strong>terven<strong>in</strong>g discourse entities (Gibson, 1998) and hierarchically based on <strong>the</strong><br />
number of <strong>in</strong>terven<strong>in</strong>g structural nodes (O’Grady, 1997). No <strong>the</strong>ory, however, has been able<br />
to account for <strong>the</strong> variations of <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>in</strong> both head-<strong>in</strong>itial and head-f<strong>in</strong>al relativization.<br />
In this talk, we review previous research (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g ours) and propose a typological<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory of relative clause process<strong>in</strong>g, pay<strong>in</strong>g special attention to head positions, case mark<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
and <strong>the</strong>matic orders (Figure 1). Languages are first classified based on <strong>the</strong> head positions<br />
<strong>in</strong>side NPs. Filler-gap dependencies (<strong>in</strong> head-<strong>in</strong>itial relatives) and gap-filler dependencies (<strong>in</strong><br />
head-f<strong>in</strong>al relatives) are taken to <strong>in</strong>volve dist<strong>in</strong>ctive process<strong>in</strong>g effects. The word-order<br />
variations with<strong>in</strong> languages with head-<strong>in</strong>itial relatives suggest that when <strong>the</strong> filler precedes<br />
<strong>the</strong> gap, <strong>the</strong> processor adopts an Active Filler Strategy (Frazier, 1987): upon encounter<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
filler, <strong>the</strong> parser <strong>in</strong>itiates <strong>the</strong> search for a gap to m<strong>in</strong>imize <strong>the</strong> work<strong>in</strong>g memory load.<br />
If <strong>the</strong> gap precedes <strong>the</strong> filler as <strong>in</strong> a head-f<strong>in</strong>al type of dependency, <strong>the</strong> construction of<br />
a gap-filler dependency would be complicated by issues of structural garden path regard<strong>in</strong>g<br />
where <strong>the</strong> relative clauses starts and where <strong>the</strong> gap is located (Hirose, 2006; L<strong>in</strong> & Bever,<br />
2011). Strategies that do not focus on construct<strong>in</strong>g a filler-gap relation would be used <strong>in</strong>stead.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> literature, it has been suggested that <strong>in</strong> case-prom<strong>in</strong>ent languages like Basque,<br />
Japanese, Korean, and Turkish, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> grammatical case is marked determ<strong>in</strong>es<br />
process<strong>in</strong>g difficulty (Carreiras et al., 2010). In a nom<strong>in</strong>ative-accusative language like<br />
Japanese, Korean, and Turkish, an object relative is more difficult than a subject relative<br />
because <strong>the</strong> object of a transitive verb receives an accusative case, which is more marked<br />
than <strong>the</strong> nom<strong>in</strong>ative case of a subject NP. In an ergative language like Basque, <strong>the</strong> subject of<br />
a transitive verb receives <strong>the</strong> ergative case and is more marked than an object NP. Therefore,<br />
a subject relative is more difficult than an object relative.<br />
In a word order prom<strong>in</strong>ent language like Mandar<strong>in</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese, <strong>the</strong> dom<strong>in</strong>ant <strong>the</strong>matic<br />
order functions as a template to be mapped with <strong>in</strong>com<strong>in</strong>g nom<strong>in</strong>al arguments and verbs for<br />
“quick and dirty” <strong>the</strong>matic <strong>in</strong>terpretations (similar to <strong>the</strong> pseudosyntax of Townsend and
Bever, 2001 and <strong>the</strong> good-enough process<strong>in</strong>g of Ferreira, 2003). Sequences of nom<strong>in</strong>al<br />
arguments and verbs that follow <strong>the</strong> dom<strong>in</strong>ant <strong>the</strong>matic orders <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> language (e.g., Agentaction-Patient<br />
<strong>in</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese object relatives) are easier to process than those that do not.<br />
Therefore, a subject relative is easier to process than an object relative (as was found by<br />
Gibson and Wu, 2011).<br />
The proposed typology demonstrates effects and strategies of structural <strong>in</strong>tegration,<br />
<strong>the</strong>matic mapp<strong>in</strong>gs as well as sensitivity to case markedness that h<strong>in</strong>ge on <strong>the</strong> typological<br />
properties of specific languages. We will fur<strong>the</strong>r exam<strong>in</strong>e previous experimental results of L2<br />
relative clause process<strong>in</strong>g and discuss <strong>the</strong> implications that such a typology has for second<br />
language studies of relative clause process<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> particular, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
relative clauses <strong>in</strong> L1s and L2s of different types would be affected by <strong>the</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ctive<br />
process<strong>in</strong>g mechanis<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong> ei<strong>the</strong>r language (cf., Juffs, 2005; Clahsen & Felser, 2006, 2008).<br />
Head-<strong>in</strong>itial<br />
Filler-gap <strong>in</strong>tegration<br />
Relative Clauses<br />
+ case-mark<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Morphological<br />
unmarkedness<br />
Figure 1. Typology of relative clause process<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Head-f<strong>in</strong>al<br />
- case-mark<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Thematic template<br />
match<strong>in</strong>g
Bethany Lochbihler (McGill)<br />
F<strong>in</strong>al and non-f<strong>in</strong>al phase status<br />
This paper discusses <strong>in</strong>equality between syntactic phases as f<strong>in</strong>al that show stronger<br />
boundaries versus non-f<strong>in</strong>al phases that <strong>in</strong>stitute a more permeable boundary. F<strong>in</strong>al phases<br />
correspond to top level functional projections <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> spirit of Gri<strong>ms</strong>haw (2000), <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g CP,<br />
DP, PP and AP, and act as absolute boundaries on head movement (Li 1990, 2005) and<br />
restrict scrambl<strong>in</strong>g (Fowlie 2010). Non-f<strong>in</strong>al phases, like category def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g heads v and n<br />
(Marantz 2001) and <strong>the</strong>ta-complete heads v* (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2004), allow head movement and<br />
scrambl<strong>in</strong>g past <strong>the</strong> phase boundary. I propose that non-f<strong>in</strong>al phases occur with<strong>in</strong> extended<br />
projections, while f<strong>in</strong>al phases mark <strong>the</strong> edge of an extended projection. I <strong>in</strong>vestigate <strong>the</strong><br />
phonological predictions made implicit by <strong>the</strong> syntactic literature, namely that <strong>the</strong> difference<br />
<strong>in</strong> type of phase boundary (as more or less permeable) should affect <strong>the</strong> phonological form<br />
that takes syntactic phase spell-out as <strong>in</strong>put. I test <strong>the</strong> phonological effect of f<strong>in</strong>al phases <strong>in</strong><br />
Ojibwe, a Central Algonquian language spoken <strong>in</strong> Canada and parts of <strong>the</strong> USA, which has<br />
syntactically complex prosodic words exhibit<strong>in</strong>g word-<strong>in</strong>ternal phases. I show that <strong>the</strong> status<br />
of a phase as f<strong>in</strong>al or non-f<strong>in</strong>al bears on prosodic word boundaries, stress assignment and <strong>the</strong><br />
order of application of phonological processes.<br />
At <strong>the</strong> heart of <strong>the</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ction between f<strong>in</strong>al and non-f<strong>in</strong>al phases is <strong>the</strong><br />
lexical/functional specification of categories. First, Gri<strong>ms</strong>haw (2000) puts forth <strong>the</strong> notion of<br />
extended projection where a lexical head resides with<strong>in</strong> a functional shell (e.g. V with<strong>in</strong> InflP<br />
and CP) but shares its categorical properties with <strong>the</strong>se functional projections. Edges of<br />
extended projections are marked by <strong>the</strong> maximal projection of a top level functional head<br />
(e.g. C for a V head). I want to claim that <strong>the</strong>se top level functional projections <strong>in</strong> fact def<strong>in</strong>e<br />
f<strong>in</strong>al phases because <strong>the</strong>y create a firm boundary between <strong>the</strong> extended doma<strong>in</strong>s of lexical<br />
heads (e.g. between verbs and <strong>the</strong>ir nom<strong>in</strong>al arguments) and show unique properties with<br />
respect to syntactic movement, discussed below.<br />
Second, f<strong>in</strong>al phases <strong>in</strong>teract with head movement. Li (1990, 2005) looks at verb<br />
<strong>in</strong>corporation where a lexical verb comb<strong>in</strong>es with a causative morpheme via head movement,<br />
form<strong>in</strong>g one prosodic word. Li argues that <strong>in</strong>corporation of a lower verb <strong>in</strong>to a higher<br />
causative Vº cannot pass through Inflº and Cº (as was proposed by Baker 1988) s<strong>in</strong>ce<br />
embedded <strong>in</strong>flection is never realized and verbs tak<strong>in</strong>g full clausal complements cannot<br />
undergo verb <strong>in</strong>corporation. Li proposes that movement of a lexical head cannot go through a<br />
functional head back to a lexical one, parallel to improper movement of XPs from A-bar to<br />
A-positions (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 1986). Although <strong>the</strong> specifier of a f<strong>in</strong>al phase can act as an escape<br />
hatch for A-bar movement (e.g. long distance wh-front<strong>in</strong>g), Li’s analysis implies that f<strong>in</strong>al<br />
phase heads, such as Cº, are an absolute boundary for head movement (Nºs also cannot move<br />
past Dº) while o<strong>the</strong>r phase heads, such as v*º, do not restrict head movement.<br />
A third set of data show<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> syntactic uniqueness of f<strong>in</strong>al phases comes from <strong>the</strong><br />
k<strong>in</strong>ds of scrambl<strong>in</strong>g possible cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistically. Fowlie (2010) discusses data from different<br />
languages (e.g. Tagalog, Walpiri and Tohono O’odham), <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that scrambl<strong>in</strong>g can occur<br />
with<strong>in</strong> DPs (also APs, PPs) and with<strong>in</strong> CPs, but cannot occur past <strong>the</strong> edge of a DP or CP.<br />
Aga<strong>in</strong> we f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> same set of f<strong>in</strong>al phases creat<strong>in</strong>g a stronger boundary, now with respect to<br />
scrambl<strong>in</strong>g, while non-f<strong>in</strong>al phases (xPs, v*P) do not show such strong restrictions.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>al phases (CP, DP, AP, PP) have syntactic status as <strong>the</strong> top level functional<br />
projection <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> extended projection of a lexical head, and non-f<strong>in</strong>al phases (xPs, v*P) are<br />
found <strong>in</strong>ternally to extended projections of lexical heads. However, phases conceptually exist<br />
so that <strong>the</strong> derivation is divided <strong>in</strong>to packets to be sent to <strong>the</strong> phonological and semantic<br />
<strong>in</strong>terfaces of <strong>the</strong> grammar (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2001). On <strong>the</strong> semantic side, f<strong>in</strong>al phases as whole<br />
extended projections are semantically saturated and <strong>the</strong>ta-marked. Next I will discuss some<br />
effects of <strong>the</strong> different phase types beyond <strong>the</strong> syntax at <strong>the</strong> phonological <strong>in</strong>terface.<br />
Ojibwe phonology shows <strong>the</strong> effects of f<strong>in</strong>al phases (versus non-f<strong>in</strong>al) <strong>in</strong> several ways.<br />
First, this polysyn<strong>the</strong>tic language tends to def<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> edges of prosodic words by f<strong>in</strong>al phases<br />
1
F<strong>in</strong>al and non-f<strong>in</strong>al phase status<br />
(potentially conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>termediate phases), such that <strong>in</strong>dependent words correspond to CP,<br />
DP, AP, PP or are elements outside of <strong>the</strong>se doma<strong>in</strong>s, such as quantifiers or discourse<br />
particles <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> specifiers of DP and CP respectively. The spell-out of a f<strong>in</strong>al phase places a<br />
f<strong>in</strong>al prosodic word boundary as well as a syntactic boundary.<br />
Second, stress assignment <strong>in</strong> Ojibwe is dependent on phase doma<strong>in</strong>, where secondary<br />
stress is computed at <strong>the</strong> spell-out of each phase, but primary stress is only computed at f<strong>in</strong>al<br />
phases. Newell (2008) shows <strong>the</strong> sensitivity of secondary stress to word-<strong>in</strong>ternal (non-f<strong>in</strong>al)<br />
phases where degenerate feet are only allowed at <strong>the</strong> right edge of a phase doma<strong>in</strong> (1).<br />
Conversely, primary stress marks <strong>the</strong> antepenultimate foot of <strong>the</strong> entire prosodic word, which<br />
is <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al phase CP <strong>in</strong> (1) (bolded).<br />
(1) (bòo)(ní)|(m<strong>in</strong>ì)(kwèe) (*(bóo)(nimì)(nikwèe))<br />
[CP[InflP[aP booni]-[vP m<strong>in</strong>ik-iwee]]]<br />
quit-dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g-VAI ‘he quit dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g’ (Newell 2008:214)<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, f<strong>in</strong>al phases affect <strong>the</strong> distribution of T-Pal(atalization) (i.e. /t, /→[č,]/__/i/), which<br />
can only occur between segments spelled-out <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> same phase and is blocked across phase<br />
edges (see Slav<strong>in</strong> 2007; Mathieu 2009). T-Pal <strong>in</strong>teracts with vowel Apocope <strong>in</strong> Ojibwe,<br />
which can delete <strong>the</strong> environment for T-Pal, namely /i/ (Piggott & Kaye 1973). (2a) <strong>in</strong>dicates<br />
a T-Pal>Apocope order (or a rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> OT) s<strong>in</strong>ce /t/ becomes [č] despite <strong>the</strong> deletion of /i/,<br />
and (2b) is <strong>the</strong> opposite Apocope>T-Pal order where vowel deletion bleeds palatalization. I<br />
account for this order<strong>in</strong>g paradox by appeal<strong>in</strong>g to f<strong>in</strong>al phases and <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that certa<strong>in</strong><br />
phonological processes can only occur at <strong>the</strong> spell-out of a specific type of phase. I propose<br />
that <strong>the</strong> process of T-Pal applies at <strong>the</strong> spell-out of every phase but Apocope only applies at a<br />
f<strong>in</strong>al phase spell-out (account<strong>in</strong>g for Apocope exclusively delet<strong>in</strong>g actual word f<strong>in</strong>al<br />
segments, and not <strong>in</strong>termediate f<strong>in</strong>al segments cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistically, e.g. Hale 1973).<br />
Therefore, <strong>in</strong> (2b) both T-Pal and Apocope are triggered at a f<strong>in</strong>al phase, and so Apocope can<br />
bleed T-Pal, but <strong>in</strong> (2a) T-Pal is triggered <strong>in</strong> an earlier v*P phase and Apocope must wait<br />
until <strong>the</strong> spell-out of <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al CP phase, giv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> apparent T-Pal>Apocope order<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
(2) a. nimiškawač b. peemaatisit<br />
[CP ni-[v*P miškaw-a-t-i]] [[peem-aat-isi]-t-i]<br />
1-freeze/hard-VII-<strong>in</strong>trans-VAI along-live-VAI -3conj-PART<br />
‘I am frozen.’ ‘he who lives’ (Kaye & Piggott 1973:356)<br />
The idea that CP and DP (as well as AP and PP) constitute special doma<strong>in</strong>s is implicit <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
syntactic literature, a property I aim to make explicit with <strong>the</strong> notion of f<strong>in</strong>al phases def<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
by extended projection of a lexical category. The effects of phases are seen <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> syntax as<br />
well as <strong>the</strong> phonology, and <strong>the</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ction between f<strong>in</strong>al and non-f<strong>in</strong>al phases likewise affects<br />
both parts of <strong>the</strong> grammar.<br />
References: Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation. UChicago Press. | Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky, N. 1986. Barriers.<br />
MIT Press. | Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti et al (eds), The<br />
cartography of syntactic structures. OUP. | Fowlie, M. 2010. More Multiple Multiple Spellout.<br />
Ms. UCLA. | Gri<strong>ms</strong>haw, J. 2000. Locality and Extended Projection. In Coopmans et al (eds),<br />
Lexical Specification and Insertion. Benjam<strong>in</strong>s. | Hale, K. 1973. Deep and surface canonical<br />
disparities <strong>in</strong> relation to analysis and change. Current Trends <strong>in</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> 11: 408-458. | Kaye,<br />
J. D., and Piggott, G. L. 1973. On <strong>the</strong> Cyclical Nature of Ojibwa T-Palatalization. LI 4:345-362. |<br />
Li, Y. 1990. X 0 -b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g and Verb Incorporation. LI 21:399-426. | Li, Y. 2005. Xº: A Theory of <strong>the</strong><br />
Morphology-Syntax Interface. MIT Press. | Marantz, Alec. 2001. Words. Ms. MIT. | Mathieu, E.<br />
2009. Noun Incorporation and Word Formation via Phrasal Movement. Ms. UOttawa. | Newell,<br />
H. 2008. Aspects of <strong>the</strong> morphology and phonology of phases. PhD Dissertation, McGill. |<br />
Slav<strong>in</strong>, T. 2007. T-Palatalization <strong>in</strong> Oji-Cree as a w<strong>in</strong>dow <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> morphosyntactic structure of<br />
<strong>the</strong> verbal complex. Generals Paper, UToronto.<br />
2
Terje Lohndal (Maryland) & Bridget Samuels (CalTech)<br />
On how null elements and unpronounced copies are different<br />
Syntax creates sound-mean<strong>in</strong>g pairs. With<strong>in</strong> Cho<strong>ms</strong>kyan generative grammar, this is<br />
typically described <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of transferr<strong>in</strong>g (portions of) syntactic structures to <strong>the</strong><br />
phonological/phonetic and semantic/conceptual <strong>in</strong>terfaces through PF and LF, respectively.<br />
However, to paraphrase Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky & Halle (1968), whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> output of <strong>the</strong> syntactic<br />
component and <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>put of <strong>the</strong> phonological component are <strong>the</strong> same th<strong>in</strong>g is an empirical<br />
issue. Indeed, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> 1970’s, much work on <strong>the</strong> syntax-phonology <strong>in</strong>terface has focused on<br />
how to derive phonological doma<strong>in</strong>s from syntactic structures under <strong>the</strong> assumption that<br />
<strong>the</strong>se two representations are related but non-isomorphic. This issue of doma<strong>in</strong>s is, however,<br />
but one piece of <strong>the</strong> much larger puzzle of how to characterize <strong>the</strong> transformations at PF<br />
which turn hierarchical, phonology-free morphosyntactic structures <strong>in</strong>to l<strong>in</strong>ear phonological<br />
representations. The purpose of this talk is to shed light on <strong>the</strong> order<strong>in</strong>g of operations at PF,<br />
and crucially argue that empty categories <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> syntax can sometimes create a configuration<br />
that is not l<strong>in</strong>earizable. Our goal <strong>in</strong> this paper is to scrut<strong>in</strong>ize <strong>the</strong> conditions under which such<br />
configurations arise, and <strong>in</strong>tegrate <strong>the</strong>se with more general observations about <strong>the</strong> effects of<br />
and differences between unpronounced copies and null elements <strong>in</strong> morphophonology.<br />
The specific case study that we will focus on relates to ‘empty edges’: phonologically<br />
contentless edges of certa<strong>in</strong> doma<strong>in</strong>s. Whe<strong>the</strong>r to characterize <strong>the</strong>se doma<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> syntactic or<br />
phonological ter<strong>ms</strong> will be one of our primary concerns. Towards this goal, we provide a new<br />
analysis of facts traditionally attributed to <strong>the</strong> ECP (e.g., Stowell 1981; cf. Pesetsky &<br />
Torrego 2001, Bošković & Lasnik 2003). An (2007a) suggests that <strong>the</strong>se data are captured by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Intonational Phrase Edge Generalization (IPEG), which states that “<strong>the</strong> edge of an<br />
Intonational phrase cannot be empty (where <strong>the</strong> edge encompasses <strong>the</strong> specifier and <strong>the</strong> head<br />
of <strong>the</strong> relevant syntactic constituent).” This expla<strong>in</strong>s why sentences which are unacceptable<br />
with an empty CP edge can be ameliorated by overt content, be it <strong>in</strong> SpecCP or <strong>in</strong> C (1).<br />
(1) a. *I saw <strong>the</strong> child yesterday [Øspec ØC Mary was wait<strong>in</strong>g for]<br />
b. I saw <strong>the</strong> child yesterday [who ØC Mary was wait<strong>in</strong>g for]<br />
c. I saw <strong>the</strong> child yesterday [Øspec that Mary was wait<strong>in</strong>g for]<br />
In order to allow for <strong>the</strong> omission of C <strong>in</strong> (2b), An (2007a) needs to assume that <strong>the</strong><br />
formation of a separate I-phrase for clausal complements of verbs (and restrictive relative<br />
clauses) is optional. The IPEG also extends to o<strong>the</strong>r categories: vP (3a,b), DP (3c,d), and AP<br />
(3e,f).<br />
(2) a. I believe [CP that [IP John liked l<strong>in</strong>guistics]].<br />
b. I believe [CP ØC [IP John liked l<strong>in</strong>guistics.]]<br />
(3) a. Eat <strong>the</strong> cake John did and eat <strong>the</strong> cookie Mary did<br />
b. *[vP Eat <strong>the</strong> cake] John did and [Øspec Øv <strong>the</strong> cookie] Mary did<br />
c. John likes this book of l<strong>in</strong>guistics and Mary, that book of physics.<br />
d. *John likes this book of l<strong>in</strong>guistics and Mary likes [Øspec ØD book of physics.<br />
e. Eager to w<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pulitzer Prize, John is, and eager to w<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nobel Prize, Mary is.<br />
f. *[AP Eager to w<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pulitzer Prize], John is, and [Øspec ØA to w<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nobel Prize,<br />
Mary is].<br />
However, <strong>the</strong> justification for <strong>the</strong> IPEG is unclear and does not follow from <strong>in</strong>dependent facts<br />
about <strong>the</strong> architecture of grammar. Moreover, it requires syntactic analyses which violate<br />
Bare Phrase Structure because An is forced to stipulate empty specifiers, which Bare Phrase<br />
structure rejects (cf. Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 1995, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998). We suggest a<br />
new analysis which accounts for <strong>the</strong> above data by referr<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>in</strong>dependently needed<br />
constructs, which we argue should be <strong>the</strong> null hypo<strong>the</strong>sis given M<strong>in</strong>imalist concerns about<br />
modular architecture (cf. Idsardi and Raimy <strong>in</strong> press).<br />
We argue for a syntactic—or at least, ‘pre-phonological’—account of empty-edge<br />
phenomena which h<strong>in</strong>ges on exactly how we understand <strong>the</strong> PF <strong>in</strong>terface. We will make a
specific proposal concern<strong>in</strong>g this architecture, show how this new account can capture all <strong>the</strong><br />
data that have been discussed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> literature, and extend it to cover additional data which<br />
have not previously been addressed <strong>in</strong> treatments of <strong>the</strong> ECP. We argue that (1a) and (3b,d,f)<br />
are unacceptable because <strong>the</strong>y cannot be l<strong>in</strong>earized. Specifically, two consecutive syntactic<br />
objects cannot be null at <strong>the</strong> stage when l<strong>in</strong>earization applies, or else <strong>the</strong> algorithm will be<br />
unable to return a l<strong>in</strong>earization statement, cf. (4).<br />
(4) L<strong>in</strong>earization algorithm: When encounter<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> merged {α, β}, α and β ccommand<strong>in</strong>g<br />
each o<strong>the</strong>r, upon Spell-Out, return an ordered set or .<br />
We follow Epste<strong>in</strong> et al. (1998) and Richards (2004) <strong>in</strong> assum<strong>in</strong>g that mutual ccommand<br />
‘overdeterm<strong>in</strong>es’ l<strong>in</strong>earization; <strong>the</strong> Precedence Resolution Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple demands that<br />
<strong>in</strong> such a configuration, one object’s c-command relations over <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r must be ignored<br />
(which object be<strong>in</strong>g subject to parametric variation). The key component to our analysis of<br />
(1)-(3) is that <strong>the</strong> algorithm (4) only succeeds <strong>in</strong> return<strong>in</strong>g an ordered pair when <strong>the</strong> elements<br />
to be l<strong>in</strong>earized are featurally dist<strong>in</strong>ct. They have to be dist<strong>in</strong>ct because of <strong>the</strong> irreflexivity<br />
condition on l<strong>in</strong>earization, as Nunes (1995, 2004) po<strong>in</strong>ts out. If <strong>the</strong> two elements are not<br />
featurally dist<strong>in</strong>ct, this results <strong>in</strong> a crash when a merged pair of elements has only Edge<br />
Features (EF; Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2008), as a result of non-<strong>in</strong>sertion of phonological content (which is<br />
crucially dist<strong>in</strong>ct from copy deletion, contra An 2007b.) Two elements with only EF are nondist<strong>in</strong>ct,<br />
which will result <strong>in</strong> a crash at l<strong>in</strong>earization. EFs are visible to <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>earization<br />
algorithm s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>se features are never deleted, as Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky (2008) argues, but <strong>the</strong>y are also<br />
never phonologically realized. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, we provide evidence that copies are marked for<br />
deletion prior to l<strong>in</strong>earization but actually deleted after l<strong>in</strong>earization, which exempts<br />
unpronounced copies from caus<strong>in</strong>g empty-edge crashes and resolves a tension between <strong>the</strong><br />
empty-edge bans <strong>in</strong> An (2007a) and (2007b), one of which is asymmetrical (left edge only)<br />
but <strong>in</strong>cludes copies, and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r which is symmetrical but excludes copies.<br />
Assum<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> accordance with Bare Phrase Structure that C does not project a specifier<br />
<strong>in</strong> declarative sentences such as (5a) [or <strong>in</strong> (2b)] (cf. Starke 2004), our account<br />
straightforwardly predicts <strong>the</strong> sentences <strong>in</strong> (5) to be grammatical, while such cases constitute<br />
prima facie exceptions to <strong>the</strong> IPEG.<br />
(5) a. [CP ØC [TP Mary was wait<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>the</strong> child]]<br />
b. [CP Who did Mary [vP see [VP tv tobj ]]]<br />
The same holds for adjuncts to matrix clauses, where <strong>the</strong>re is no null element <strong>in</strong>terven<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
(6) a. [CP [AP True to herself], [TP she planned to rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>re ]]. (Selkirk 2005)<br />
b. [CP [PP On <strong>the</strong> fourth of July], [TP we’ll have a parade and fireworks]].<br />
We fur<strong>the</strong>r show that <strong>the</strong> above analysis extends to account for <strong>the</strong> unacceptable<br />
sentences <strong>in</strong> (3) as well as those <strong>in</strong> (7), <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g a sentential subject (7b) and a topicalized<br />
CP (7d). In both <strong>the</strong> unacceptable cases, <strong>the</strong>re will be two objects that only have EFs that are<br />
adjacent, thus <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>earization algorithm crashes.<br />
(7) a. [CP ØC [CP That John is a genius] was believed by many people.<br />
b. *[CP ØC [CP ØC John is a genius] was believed by many people.<br />
c. [CP ØC [CP That John is a genius], Mary believed.<br />
d. *[CP ØC [CP ØC John is a genius], Mary believed.<br />
We will address fur<strong>the</strong>r cases as well, and <strong>the</strong>n turn to o<strong>the</strong>r data concern<strong>in</strong>g how<br />
morphophonology deals with null elements. We argue that morphophonology ‘knows about’<br />
null elements s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>y trigger phonological cycles and produce cyclic block<strong>in</strong>g effects, but<br />
that unpronounced copies are phonologically <strong>in</strong>ert (Samuels 2011). This streng<strong>the</strong>ns our<br />
claim that unpronounced copies and null elements must be dist<strong>in</strong>guished, and we argue that<br />
<strong>the</strong> former are elim<strong>in</strong>ated earlier than <strong>the</strong> latter – null elements actually persist until <strong>the</strong><br />
handoff to phonology proper.
Sophia Manika, Sergey Avrut<strong>in</strong> & Eric Reuland (Utrecht)<br />
The bits of dependencies<br />
Background<br />
Consider a m<strong>in</strong>imally different pair:<br />
1. Maria blames, <strong>in</strong> most of <strong>the</strong> cases, herself for <strong>the</strong> bad grades<br />
2. Maria blames, <strong>in</strong> most of <strong>the</strong> case, <strong>the</strong> teacher for <strong>the</strong> bad grades<br />
Interpretation of <strong>the</strong> first sentence requires establish<strong>in</strong>g a syntactic dependency between an<br />
anaphoric element and its antecedent. Interpretation of <strong>the</strong> second sentence requires<br />
<strong>in</strong>tegration of def<strong>in</strong>ite NP <strong>the</strong> teacher <strong>in</strong>to discourse as part of <strong>the</strong> blam<strong>in</strong>g event.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Reuland's model of <strong>the</strong> language - relevant architecture of work<strong>in</strong>g memory<br />
(Reuland 2009, 2010), <strong>the</strong>se two operations nicely reflect two dist<strong>in</strong>ct memory networks<br />
<strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> language process<strong>in</strong>g. In Reuland's term<strong>in</strong>ology one computes form/syntax (socalled<br />
Declarative / Procedural Interface, or DPI) and one is responsible for <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tegration of<br />
<strong>the</strong> content/discourse <strong>in</strong>formation.<br />
The current study provides experimental evidence for <strong>the</strong> existence of <strong>the</strong>se two dist<strong>in</strong>ct<br />
syste<strong>ms</strong> and proposes a novel measure of process<strong>in</strong>g complexity. Specifically, we<br />
demonstrate that it is <strong>the</strong> entropy of <strong>the</strong> verbal paradigm (an <strong>in</strong>formation - <strong>the</strong>oretic<br />
notion <strong>in</strong>troduced by Shannon 1948) that <strong>in</strong>fluences <strong>the</strong> operation of <strong>the</strong> relevant<br />
memory syste<strong>ms</strong>. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, we demonstrate that changes <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> entropy value of<br />
<strong>the</strong> verb family <strong>in</strong>fluence (crucially, <strong>in</strong> a different way!) <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g cost of <strong>the</strong><br />
reflexive object NP and a def<strong>in</strong>ite object NP.<br />
Entropy calculation<br />
Inflectional entropy of a verb’s paradigm <strong>in</strong>dicates <strong>the</strong> level of similarity 1 among its ite<strong>ms</strong>. It<br />
is a function of <strong>the</strong> number of <strong>in</strong>flected for<strong>ms</strong> of <strong>the</strong> verb, <strong>the</strong> frequency of each verb form<br />
and <strong>the</strong> number of possible l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>in</strong>terpretations <strong>the</strong> form can be found <strong>in</strong> (i.e. <strong>the</strong> verb<br />
form “work” <strong>in</strong> English can be used as 1 st sg, 2 nd sg, <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itive etc). In this sense, higher<br />
entropy reflects a more “uniform” distribution of memory traces between for<strong>ms</strong> (hence,<br />
higher uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty <strong>in</strong> lexical retrieval), while a more “diverse” distribution is represented by a<br />
lower entropy (and thus by a lower uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty <strong>in</strong> retrieval). Van Ewijk & Avrut<strong>in</strong> (2011,<br />
among o<strong>the</strong>rs) showed that <strong>in</strong>flectional entropy of a verb modulated retrieval of a target form<br />
and suggest that entropy is an <strong>in</strong>dex of complexity.<br />
Method<br />
Thirty-four Dutch native students, aged 21-29 years old, were tested <strong>in</strong> a self-paced read<strong>in</strong>g<br />
task. <strong>Read<strong>in</strong>g</strong> times <strong>in</strong> each word were measured.<br />
Twenty-four Dutch verbs were chosen based on <strong>the</strong>ir entropy values (taken from van Ewijk &<br />
Avrut<strong>in</strong>, 2011) and were classified <strong>in</strong> two groups: low and high entropy. Each verb was used<br />
<strong>in</strong> two conditions; with a syntactic dependency (a reflexive pronoun) and without (proper<br />
name), result<strong>in</strong>g to forty-eight experimental ite<strong>ms</strong>. Although <strong>the</strong> critical regions are <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t<br />
after <strong>the</strong> verb (rg 2) and <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t of object <strong>in</strong>tegration (rg 7), we <strong>in</strong>cluded subsequent regions<br />
(rg 8- 11) to account for spillover effects. All words <strong>in</strong> regions 3-11, (except for <strong>the</strong> proper<br />
name), were identical ensur<strong>in</strong>g weighed <strong>in</strong>formation load across ite<strong>ms</strong> (see Table below).<br />
1 Shannon’s notion of Entropy was proposed to apply to a random variable X to describe <strong>the</strong> degree of<br />
uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty related to <strong>the</strong> distribution of probabilities of <strong>the</strong> variable. For simplicity reasons we refer to Entropy<br />
as degree of similarity because we are study<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>flectional families and when entropy is applied it mirrors how<br />
different <strong>the</strong> verb-for<strong>ms</strong> with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> paradig<strong>ms</strong> are.
He/She Verb, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> most cases, HIM(HER)SELF/ Loes and not <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r (noun)<br />
Reflexive<br />
NP<br />
HIJ/ZIJ verb <strong>in</strong> de meeste gevallen<br />
ZICHZELF<br />
Loes<br />
en niet de andere<br />
vary<strong>in</strong>g entropy constant entropy object spill over<br />
region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11<br />
Results<br />
At <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t of verb retrieval (rg 3), high entropy verbs were read significantly faster than low<br />
entropy ones (p< .05, r=.35).<br />
At <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t of <strong>the</strong> object (rg7), <strong>the</strong>re was a significant <strong>in</strong>teraction between type of object and<br />
verb entropy (p< 0.5, r=.43). Importantly, contrasts revealed that <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>teraction was due to<br />
<strong>the</strong> reflexives; higher entropy verbs delayed establish<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> dependency between <strong>the</strong><br />
reflexive and its referent.<br />
Moreover, <strong>the</strong>re was a ma<strong>in</strong> effect of object type <strong>in</strong> rg8. Reflexives were read significantly<br />
faster across conditions than referential NPs (p< .001, r=.56).<br />
Discussion<br />
These data show how entropy can <strong>in</strong>fluence memory processes. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong>y show that<br />
<strong>the</strong> establishment of a dependency between a reflexive and its antecedent is not only<br />
grammatically constra<strong>in</strong>ed, but it is <strong>in</strong>fluenced by non-grammatical constra<strong>in</strong>ts such as verbal<br />
entropy as well.<br />
Activation of a verb form automatically activates its paradigm network. The more “uniform”<br />
<strong>the</strong> probability distribution of <strong>the</strong> verb for<strong>ms</strong> with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> paradigm is, <strong>the</strong> higher is <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>flectional entropy. Verbs with high entropy lose less energy than low entropy verbs dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> spread of activation, and retrieval is faster (as <strong>in</strong> van Ewijk & Avrut<strong>in</strong>, replicated here <strong>in</strong><br />
rg3). The reflexive cases signal <strong>the</strong> need for an <strong>in</strong>tra-sentential referent and <strong>the</strong> verb is readdressed.<br />
High <strong>in</strong>flectional entropy <strong>in</strong>duces competition between <strong>the</strong> target verb form and<br />
<strong>the</strong> “yet-not-decayed” for<strong>ms</strong> of <strong>the</strong> paradigm that have similar probability. This<br />
“<strong>in</strong>terference”, present only <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>flectional paradig<strong>ms</strong> with high entropy, delays <strong>the</strong><br />
establish<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> dependency between <strong>the</strong> reflexive and its antecedent (<strong>in</strong>teraction <strong>in</strong> rg 7).<br />
Additionally, <strong>the</strong> effect at region 8 <strong>in</strong>dicates that grammatically-constra<strong>in</strong>ed dependencies<br />
(reflexives) are established faster than non-grammatically constra<strong>in</strong>ed dependencies (noun).<br />
That implies <strong>the</strong> existence of a dist<strong>in</strong>ct network that computes, very fast, syntactic<br />
requirements, such as assignment of an <strong>in</strong>tra-sentential referent. Delay of <strong>the</strong> nouns results<br />
from <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>in</strong>formation from discourse is needed for a referent to be found.<br />
References:<br />
Reuland, E. (2009). Language, Symbolization and beyond. In R. B. Knight. (Ed.), The<br />
Prehistory of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
Reuland, E. (2010). Imag<strong>in</strong>ation, plann<strong>in</strong>g and work<strong>in</strong>g memory: <strong>the</strong> emergence of language.<br />
Current Anthropology, 51, 99-110.<br />
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A ma<strong>the</strong>matical <strong>the</strong>ory of communication. Bell System Technical<br />
Journal , 27, 379–423.<br />
van Ewijk, L., & Avrut<strong>in</strong>, S. (2011). Auditory lexical decision <strong>in</strong> healthy elderly and young<br />
subjects.The effect of <strong>in</strong>formation load and <strong>in</strong>flectional entropy. Procedia- Social and<br />
Behavioural Sciences, 23, 104-105.
Rita Manz<strong>in</strong>i (Firenze) & Anna Roussou (Patras)<br />
Empty categories: empty operators and variables at <strong>the</strong> LF <strong>in</strong>terface<br />
We argue for a restricted <strong>in</strong>ventory of <strong>in</strong>terpretable non-pronounced elements of grammar,<br />
<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g only empty operators and variables. Our model observes m<strong>in</strong>imalist postulates<br />
(Inclusiveness, one level of syntactic representation, etc.), but is representational, s<strong>in</strong>ce we ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><br />
that operators and variables are <strong>in</strong>troduced by <strong>in</strong>terpretive pr<strong>in</strong>ciples at <strong>the</strong> LF <strong>in</strong>terface.<br />
1. Phrasal ‘trace’ and ‘PRO’ are (just) variables at <strong>the</strong> LF <strong>in</strong>terface. In standard m<strong>in</strong>imalism,<br />
movement is Internal Merge (IM): a Probe α with an EPP feature targets a Goal β already merged <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> derivation, as <strong>in</strong> (1). IM is construed as a mechanism that <strong>in</strong>troduces a second copy of β. If all<br />
<strong>in</strong>stances of ‘movement’ are overt (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky 2000), <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> EPP can be viewed as an <strong>in</strong>struction<br />
for lexicalization.<br />
(1) [αP β αEPP [… [ γP γ.. β]]]<br />
Alternatively, <strong>in</strong> multi-dom<strong>in</strong>ance (MD) approaches (Starke 2001; Frampton 2004; Johnson 2009;<br />
de Vries 2009; a.o.) β merges once (externally, EM), and ‘re-merge’ amounts to immediate<br />
dom<strong>in</strong>ance by a higher node, so that β has more than one mo<strong>the</strong>r node, as <strong>in</strong> (2). (2) allows for<br />
spell-out of β <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> higher or <strong>the</strong> lower position, subject to some PF-algorithm.<br />
(2) [αP α(EPP) [… [γP γ.. β]]]<br />
(1) and (2) share <strong>the</strong> requirement that β merge <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> lower position for argument structure<br />
satisfaction, at least if β is an argument, i.e. EM expresses <strong>the</strong> core properties of D-structure.<br />
A different logical possibility is that Merge is always external, with β directly merg<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
EPP position; <strong>the</strong>re is a s<strong>in</strong>gle copy/occurrence and no re-merge, as <strong>in</strong> (3). S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> position of<br />
Merge <strong>in</strong> (3) is also that of spell-out, <strong>the</strong>re is no need for a PF-deletion operation, as <strong>in</strong> (1), or<br />
l<strong>in</strong>earization algorithm as <strong>in</strong> (2). In ter<strong>ms</strong> of <strong>in</strong>terpretation, though, β associates with some lower<br />
part of <strong>the</strong> configuration, here <strong>in</strong>dicated as e. Therefore we need to consider what e amounts to –<br />
and what ensures cha<strong>in</strong> formation between β and e.<br />
(3) [αP β αEPP [… [ γP γ .. (e) ]]]<br />
In standard generative <strong>the</strong>ory, if β is an argument, <strong>the</strong>n e corresponds to its <strong>the</strong>ta-position – whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />
e is a copy or its GB counterpart, i.e. <strong>the</strong> identity element e of <strong>the</strong> str<strong>in</strong>g. But suppose <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ta-role<br />
has no structural correlate. This means that <strong>the</strong> cha<strong>in</strong> should be computed at <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terface by some<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretive algorithm.<br />
For <strong>the</strong> sake of concreteness consider <strong>the</strong> wh-construction <strong>in</strong> (4). In <strong>the</strong> copy-<strong>the</strong>ory of<br />
movement, <strong>the</strong> second gap e2 <strong>in</strong> (4) is a copy of what which deletes at PF, while LF converts it to a<br />
variable (cf. Fox 2002). The first gap e1 is a copy of you, which aga<strong>in</strong> deletes, while <strong>the</strong> PFrealization<br />
co<strong>in</strong>cides with that of <strong>the</strong> EPP argument (syntactic subject). If e, now understood as a<br />
variable, is not structurally represented (as a copy or some o<strong>the</strong>r empty category), as we propose<br />
here, it must be <strong>in</strong>troduced directly at <strong>the</strong> LF <strong>in</strong>terface.<br />
(4) [C What did [I you [V (e1) see (e2) ]]]<br />
Indeed see, be<strong>in</strong>g a two-place predicate, <strong>in</strong>troduces two variables (x, y) which are bound by <strong>the</strong><br />
external and <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal arguments respectively (by <strong>the</strong> λ-b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g mechanism of Heim & Kratzer<br />
1997, cf. Adger & Ramchand’s (2005) Λ feature, etc.). This (operator, variable) relation is fully<br />
equivalent to <strong>the</strong> movement operation – and it is redundant when added to it (Brody’s (2003)<br />
argument for representationalism). In an A’-dependency, <strong>the</strong> wh-operator is <strong>in</strong> turn construed as a<br />
λ-abstractor, and so can be construed <strong>the</strong> EPP <strong>in</strong> relation to <strong>the</strong> subject, follow<strong>in</strong>g Butler (2004).<br />
In short, a ‘movement’ relation is def<strong>in</strong>ed by a s<strong>in</strong>gle argument satisfy<strong>in</strong>g two <strong>in</strong>stances of<br />
λs. Though control will not be considered here <strong>in</strong> any detail, we notice that <strong>the</strong> same also holds of<br />
(obligatory) control, which m<strong>in</strong>imally <strong>in</strong>volves two <strong>the</strong>ta-roles (λ-abstractors) bound by <strong>the</strong> same<br />
argument. In ‘arbitrary’ control, one variable is simply bound by a generic closure operator. Hence<br />
PRO, like trace, <strong>in</strong> present ter<strong>ms</strong> translates to a variable at <strong>the</strong> LF <strong>in</strong>terface.<br />
2. There are no head ‘trace’ and pro. The empirical relevance of our discussion becomes more<br />
evident when we move from <strong>the</strong> dislocation of phrases (specifically DP’s) to that of heads<br />
(specifically verbal heads). Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky (2001) excludes that IM applies to heads. If on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand,
head movement is a PF operation, as Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky proposes, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>in</strong> syntax heads always sit <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
EM position, conceived of as <strong>the</strong>ir D-structure position. At <strong>the</strong> same time it is not clear what PF<br />
movement amounts to. A possible construal for it is Morphological Merger (Marantz 1988, Embick<br />
and Noyer 2001). However, to <strong>the</strong> extent that similar Merge operations occur <strong>in</strong> different<br />
components, obvious notions of economy (e.g. non redundancy) appear to be violated.<br />
The discussion <strong>in</strong> part 1 suggests ano<strong>the</strong>r logical possibility, namely that <strong>in</strong> syntax heads<br />
<strong>in</strong>deed occupy <strong>the</strong>ir EM position which is now identified with <strong>the</strong>ir surface position. Consider for<br />
example V-to-C ‘movement’ (or V-<strong>in</strong>-C position<strong>in</strong>g) as <strong>in</strong> German (5). The Merge position of <strong>the</strong><br />
verb <strong>in</strong> (5) will be determ<strong>in</strong>ed by <strong>the</strong> same k<strong>in</strong>d of considerations as <strong>the</strong> Merge of <strong>the</strong> wh-phrase <strong>in</strong><br />
(4), i.e. <strong>the</strong> (‘EPP’) <strong>in</strong>struction to lexicalize certa<strong>in</strong> properties (<strong>the</strong> wh-property or <strong>the</strong> syntactic<br />
subject EPP <strong>in</strong> (4), <strong>the</strong> ‘f<strong>in</strong>iteness’ property <strong>in</strong> (5)).<br />
(5) [CP Gestern sahst [IP du den Peter ]] (lit: ‘yesterday saw you Peter’)<br />
At <strong>the</strong> same time, <strong>the</strong>re is no evidence that <strong>the</strong>re are head variables <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> putative Dstructure<br />
position. The <strong>in</strong>terpretive question <strong>the</strong>n is: how can predicate-argument relations be<br />
established? When <strong>the</strong> argument is <strong>in</strong> a position to b<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> variable <strong>in</strong>troduced by <strong>the</strong> predicate, <strong>the</strong><br />
discussion goes through as <strong>in</strong> (4). So <strong>the</strong> question is what happens when <strong>the</strong> reverse configuration<br />
holds, as <strong>in</strong> (5) (or <strong>in</strong> any declarative sentence <strong>in</strong> languages with V <strong>in</strong> I, etc.). Given <strong>the</strong> availability<br />
of overt agreement between predicates and <strong>the</strong>ir arguments, we have evidence that functional heads<br />
must have ‘probes’ reach<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to argument positions <strong>the</strong>ir ‘goals’), yield<strong>in</strong>g standard m<strong>in</strong>imalist<br />
Agree – which we could use to this end. Yet Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky (2000) argues that <strong>the</strong>ta-roles are not<br />
features and <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong>ta-relations cannot be established by feature-check<strong>in</strong>g under Agree (contra<br />
Hornste<strong>in</strong> 1999, Manz<strong>in</strong>i & Roussou 2000).<br />
We take Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky’s (2000) conclusion to be correct, but we also argue that agreement is not<br />
a feature check<strong>in</strong>g relation. Consider <strong>the</strong> classical example of subject-f<strong>in</strong>ite verb agreement, say<br />
between du and –st <strong>in</strong> (5). It is a traditional idea (see <strong>the</strong> null subject parameter) that <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>ite verb<br />
<strong>in</strong>flection is pronom<strong>in</strong>al(-like), hav<strong>in</strong>g all of <strong>the</strong> crucial properties of a pronoun, for <strong>in</strong>stance<br />
reference to ‘hearer’ <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of –st ‘2 nd sg’. If so, agreement need not <strong>in</strong>volve <strong>the</strong> deletion of<br />
un<strong>in</strong>terpretable features. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> ‘hearer’ specifications of du and –st must be attributed to <strong>the</strong><br />
same argument slot. The non-dist<strong>in</strong>ctness (i.e. agreement) of <strong>the</strong>ir referentially relevant properties<br />
(features) will simply be a consequence of this. Therefore, feature check<strong>in</strong>g is not what probe-goal<br />
relations are about. Instead, what <strong>the</strong>y are about is precisely <strong>the</strong> predicate-argument calculus, of<br />
which agreement is but a reflex.<br />
In o<strong>the</strong>r words, saturation of <strong>the</strong>ta-roles corresponds to <strong>the</strong> b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of variables (<strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>taroles<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> discussion <strong>in</strong> section 1, i.e. <strong>the</strong> ‘probes’) by arguments (i.e. <strong>the</strong> ‘goals’). Phifeature<br />
bundles, notably f<strong>in</strong>ite verb <strong>in</strong>flections, are <strong>in</strong>terpretable as <strong>the</strong> most elementary possible<br />
satisfaction of <strong>the</strong>ta-roles. In turn, <strong>the</strong> agreement relation (for <strong>in</strong>stance between a verb <strong>in</strong>flection and<br />
a DP) is part of <strong>the</strong> predicate-argument calculus, and is essentially <strong>the</strong> reverse of <strong>the</strong> movement<br />
relation. ‘Movement’ has a s<strong>in</strong>gle argument and two λ abstractions, while ‘agreement’ has a s<strong>in</strong>gle λ<br />
abstraction (i.e. <strong>the</strong>ta-role or argument slot) and two arguments (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g now <strong>in</strong>flections).<br />
A consequence of <strong>the</strong> construal of phi-feature bundles as pronom<strong>in</strong>al elements is of course<br />
<strong>the</strong> elim<strong>in</strong>ation of pro (both expletive and referential). Null subject languages (or person for<strong>ms</strong><br />
with<strong>in</strong> a language) are those where <strong>the</strong> word-level lexicalization provided by <strong>the</strong> verb <strong>in</strong>flection<br />
suffices for <strong>the</strong> EPP; non-null subject languages (or for<strong>ms</strong>) are those where it does not.<br />
3. Empty operators. Our proposal so far admits only of variables at <strong>the</strong> LF <strong>in</strong>terface, elim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g<br />
purely syntactic (or ‘PF’) elements such as head trace and pro. In such a <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>the</strong>re will of course<br />
be empty operators as well. As time allows, we will argue that some ‘functional’ categories are<br />
better understood as operators (e.g. ‘number’, cf. <strong>the</strong> discussion with<strong>in</strong> Distributed Morphology<br />
from Noyer (1992) to Harbour (2011)). Therefore ‘silent’ categories, i.e. phonologically empty<br />
lexical item <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sense of Kayne (2010) may prove unnecessary (<strong>the</strong> converse of <strong>the</strong> conclusion <strong>in</strong><br />
section 2 that <strong>the</strong>re are no ‘un<strong>in</strong>terpretable’ lexical entries ei<strong>the</strong>r), once <strong>the</strong> more restrictive category<br />
of empty operator is adequately def<strong>in</strong>ed.
Tania Leal Méndez & Christ<strong>in</strong>e Shea (Iowa)<br />
L1 and L2 Mexican Spanish and <strong>in</strong>formation structure: P-movement or <strong>in</strong>-situ<br />
prosody?<br />
The present experiments focus on P-movement, a Spanish structure that lies at <strong>the</strong> syntaxdiscourse<br />
<strong>in</strong>terface. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Zubizarreta (1998), <strong>the</strong> syntactic reflex of P-movement<br />
results <strong>in</strong> two word orders: VOS and [S]VPPO: (underl<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g represents new <strong>in</strong>formation)<br />
Context: Who ate <strong>the</strong> apple? P-movement type 1<br />
Comió la manzana Juan. (VOS)<br />
Ate <strong>the</strong> apple Juan<br />
#Juan comió la manzana. (#SVO)<br />
Context: What did Juan put on top of <strong>the</strong> table? P-movement type 2<br />
Juan puso sobre la mesa un libro. (SVPPO)<br />
Juan put on top of <strong>the</strong> table a book.<br />
#Juan puso un libro sobre la mesa (#SVOPP)<br />
Juan put a book on top of <strong>the</strong> table<br />
Given that p-movement is a result of phonological alignment requirements, it has been<br />
argued to be prosodically motivated (Zubizarreta, 1998; but see López, 2009 for a<br />
syntactically-motivated explanation).<br />
Experiment 1 (Judgments)<br />
To test whe<strong>the</strong>r native Spanish speakers and L2 learners would <strong>the</strong> pert<strong>in</strong>ent word orders to<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>formational structure (context), we used a used a bi-modal (text-audio) contextualized<br />
acceptability task, conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>se context-test sentence comb<strong>in</strong>ations (all <strong>in</strong> Spanish): 12<br />
P-movement (VOS and [S]VPPO), 6—Rheme (VSO), plus 18 fillers. SVO was excluded as<br />
an option because it is a „default‟ (biased) order <strong>in</strong> Spanish. Us<strong>in</strong>g a scale (1-4 or “I don‟t<br />
know”), participants judged (<strong>in</strong>)felicity <strong>in</strong> context. Participants also completed a proficiency<br />
test (two multiple-choice sections of a standardized test). Participants (N=137) <strong>in</strong>cluded 49<br />
native speakers, 25 advanced learners, 29 <strong>in</strong>termediate, and 46 low-<strong>in</strong>termediate. All learners<br />
had English as <strong>the</strong>ir L1. Group and <strong>in</strong>dividual results <strong>in</strong>dicate <strong>the</strong>se properties can be<br />
successfully acquired, although not all to <strong>the</strong> same extent (see Figures for results).<br />
Additionally, <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong> native speakers <strong>in</strong>dicate that <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of P-movement 1, <strong>the</strong><br />
dist<strong>in</strong>ction between <strong>the</strong> two word orders <strong>in</strong> context is clear, while this was not <strong>the</strong> case for Pmovement<br />
2.<br />
Experiment 2 (Production)<br />
To test whe<strong>the</strong>r native Mexican Spanish speakers (from central Mexico, Puebla State)<br />
produced this orders <strong>in</strong> context and to analyze <strong>the</strong>ir prosodic encod<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
structure, we used a contextualized forced choice production task. In a video, participants<br />
were presented with a context (a question) (8 seconds). After each question, participants<br />
viewed a short segment of a silent film (10-15 seconds). Then, participants were presented<br />
with three options to answer <strong>the</strong> question. These options differed only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> word order.<br />
Responses were audio-recorded (10 seconds). Participants <strong>in</strong>cluded a monol<strong>in</strong>gual Spanish<br />
group (n=53) all born and resid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Mexico and a bil<strong>in</strong>gual group (n=11) Bil<strong>in</strong>gual NS of<br />
Spanish who had completed a Master‟s degree <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> States and had lived <strong>in</strong> an Englishspeak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
country at least 7 years (TOEFL m<strong>in</strong>: 500). Group and <strong>in</strong>dividual results show that<br />
<strong>the</strong> preferential manner for encod<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation structure (focus) is not through syntactic<br />
means (word order) but through prosody. Spanish ToBI analyses reveal that native Mexican<br />
Spanish speakers do mark <strong>in</strong>formation focus, but not <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> expected fashion. Instead, <strong>the</strong>se
speakers prefer to mark narrow focus by means of pitch accents on <strong>the</strong> narrow-focus words<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> expected syntactic movement. While Zubizarreta (1998) does not necessarily<br />
rule out this option, it is not hypo<strong>the</strong>sized to be <strong>the</strong> overwhelm<strong>in</strong>gly preferred one. While<br />
dialect-specific differences <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of how prosody and <strong>in</strong>formation structure <strong>in</strong>teract have<br />
been well-documented, <strong>the</strong> evidence presented here suggests that not only can prosody be<br />
dialect specific (Prieto & Roseano, 2010), but <strong>the</strong> syntax-prosody <strong>in</strong>terface may also manifest<br />
dialect-specific effects <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of production.<br />
Experiment 3 (Perception)<br />
To fur<strong>the</strong>r test <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis that Mexican Spanish speakers prefer <strong>the</strong> prosodic option <strong>in</strong><br />
ter<strong>ms</strong> of <strong>in</strong>formation structure realization (as perta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g to P-movement), we used a forced<br />
choice listen<strong>in</strong>g identification task. Participants heard a sentence with ei<strong>the</strong>r narrow focus<br />
on <strong>the</strong> subject (p-movement 1, VOS, 6 sentences) or narrow focus on <strong>the</strong> object (p-movement<br />
2, [S]VPPO, 6 sentences), plus 10 fillers and had to select which question best corresponded<br />
to <strong>the</strong> sentence heard, whe<strong>the</strong>r a question focused on <strong>the</strong> subject (e.g., ¿Quién comió? Who<br />
ate?, or ¿Qué pasó? What happened?). Based upon <strong>the</strong> data from <strong>the</strong> production study cited<br />
above, we hypo<strong>the</strong>size that Mexican Spanish speakers will prefer sentences with SVO order,<br />
accompanied by prosodically-realized narrow focus on <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>in</strong> response to „Who ate?‟<br />
type questions over VOS word-order. The same preference is predicted for p-movement 2.<br />
We are currently analyz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> data for this experiment.<br />
Discussion<br />
We present prelim<strong>in</strong>ary perception and production data suggest<strong>in</strong>g that p-movement may be a<br />
dialect-dependent manifestation of <strong>the</strong> syntax-prosody <strong>in</strong>terface, given that Mexican Spanish<br />
speakers do not seem to use it to express <strong>in</strong>formation-structure shifts. This implies that <strong>the</strong><br />
realization of <strong>the</strong> prosody-syntax <strong>in</strong>terface <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of <strong>in</strong>formation structure may need to be<br />
re-conceptualized to <strong>in</strong>corporate optional, less categorical preferences <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> grammar of<br />
native speakers.<br />
Figures<br />
Experiment 1: Acceptability Judgment averages for P-movement 1, P-movement 2<br />
Experiment 2:<br />
P-movement 1, Bil<strong>in</strong>guals P-movement 1, Monol<strong>in</strong>guals<br />
References<br />
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge: MIT Press.<br />
Prieto, P., Roseano, P. (coords.) (2010). Transcription of Intonation of <strong>the</strong> Spanish Language.<br />
L<strong>in</strong>com Europa: München.
Luisa Meroni & Andrea Gualm<strong>in</strong>i (Utrecht)<br />
Do you know all SI? I know some<br />
Context –dependence of children’s computation of SIs<br />
Many experimental studies have shown that children don't compute scalar implicatures (SIs)<br />
as much as adults, despite master<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> prerequisites to <strong>the</strong>ir computation (Chierchia et al.,<br />
2000). In addition, different tasks (truth value judgment, picture‐selection or act‐out) have<br />
been shown to affect children's SIs computation, lead<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> claim that <strong>the</strong> complexity of<br />
judgment‐tasks is beyond children's limited cognitive resources (Pouscoulous et al. 2007;<br />
Katsos et el., <strong>in</strong> press). This paper presents experimental data show<strong>in</strong>g that 1) children can <strong>in</strong><br />
fact compute SIs to <strong>the</strong> same extent as adults when this is <strong>the</strong> only contextually available<br />
option (Gualm<strong>in</strong>i et al., 2008) and 2) <strong>the</strong>y do so <strong>in</strong> a typical Truth Value Judgment task (Cra<strong>in</strong><br />
& Thornton, 1998).<br />
The role of contextual <strong>in</strong>formation for SIs computation was discussed by Welker<br />
(1994) and Carston (1998), through examples (1) and (2).<br />
(1) A: I'm hav<strong>in</strong>g a d<strong>in</strong>ner party and I need six more chairs.<br />
B: John has four chairs.<br />
(2) A: I'm hav<strong>in</strong>g a d<strong>in</strong>ner party and I need four more chairs.<br />
B: John has four chairs.<br />
The contrast lies <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> SI associated with <strong>the</strong> numeral four (exactly 4) is<br />
computed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first dialogue, but not <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second one (see Zondervan et al., 2009). In light<br />
of <strong>the</strong>oretical and experimental evidence suggest<strong>in</strong>g that implicatures are costly (Re<strong>in</strong>hart<br />
1998, Chierchia et al. 2000, Noveck 2001 among o<strong>the</strong>rs) a plausible view is that <strong>the</strong>ir cost<br />
needs to be justified. Our proposal is that contextual relevance provides children with a reason<br />
to comply with this cost. In particular, we draw upon <strong>the</strong> question that is raised <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> context,<br />
and that is usually referred to as <strong>the</strong> Question Under Discussion (QUD, Roberts 1996) that has<br />
been already shown to exert an effect on resolv<strong>in</strong>g scope ambiguities for both children and<br />
adults (see Gualm<strong>in</strong>i et al. 2008).<br />
To <strong>in</strong>vestigate whe<strong>the</strong>r children compute <strong>the</strong> SI associated with some (some but not<br />
all), when presented with <strong>the</strong> appropriate QUD, we tested children with a Truth Value<br />
Judgment task. In a typical Truth Value Judgment task experiment, children listen to stories<br />
with a puppet and have to evaluate what <strong>the</strong> puppet says relatively to <strong>the</strong> story <strong>the</strong>y just heard.<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ce we wanted to study <strong>the</strong> effect of an explicit QUD on children's computation of SIs,<br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> design by Zondervan et al. (2009), we elicited <strong>the</strong> target question from <strong>the</strong><br />
puppet by overtly ask<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> relevant QUD. The target question <strong>the</strong>n had to be evaluated by<br />
<strong>the</strong> subjects relatively to <strong>the</strong> story <strong>the</strong>y had just heard.<br />
To illustrate, children heard sentences like 3) I th<strong>in</strong>k some hotdogs were delivered as a<br />
description of a story <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> relevant character delivered all <strong>the</strong> hot‐dogs. As <strong>in</strong><br />
Zondervan et al. (2009), <strong>the</strong> target sentence (3) was presented as an answer to two different<br />
questions (4a or 4b), depend<strong>in</strong>g on which condition children had been assigned to:<br />
4) a. Were some hot‐dogs delivered? Condition1<br />
b. Were all <strong>the</strong> hot‐dogs delivered? Condition2<br />
Thirty English-speak<strong>in</strong>g children participated <strong>in</strong> this experiment, rang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> age from 3;8 to<br />
6;5 (Mean = 4;10). We used a between-subject design where 15 children were presented with<br />
<strong>the</strong> question under discussion <strong>in</strong> 4a (Mean = 5;1) and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r 15 children with <strong>the</strong> question<br />
<strong>in</strong> 4b (Mean = 4;8). Each child saw four target trials <strong>in</strong>terspersed with fillers to balance <strong>the</strong><br />
expected number of yes and no answers.
We predicted that <strong>the</strong> implicature calculation would be affected by <strong>the</strong> contextually<br />
available question. Thus, subjects should calculate <strong>the</strong> SI ‐ and reject (3) ‐ when asked to<br />
evaluate (3) as an answer to <strong>the</strong> QUD <strong>in</strong> (4b), but not when (3) was presented as an answer to<br />
(4a). The reason is that both read<strong>in</strong>gs of (3), with or without SI, answer <strong>the</strong> QUD; thus a<br />
different criterion needs to be <strong>in</strong>voked to select one read<strong>in</strong>g (for <strong>in</strong>stance, computational<br />
complexity or <strong>the</strong> Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple of Charity, both lead<strong>in</strong>g to an affirmative answer). Differently,<br />
without <strong>the</strong> relevant implicature, (3) is not a good answer to (4b) (Gualm<strong>in</strong>i et al., 2008).<br />
Subjects should thus be led to consider whe<strong>the</strong>r an alternative <strong>in</strong>terpretation can be found that<br />
answers <strong>the</strong> QUD, and <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> relevant SI fits <strong>the</strong> bill. The results<br />
confirmed our prediction. Children accepted <strong>the</strong> sentence <strong>in</strong> (3) 85 % of <strong>the</strong> time, when this<br />
was preceded by question (4a), but <strong>the</strong>ir acceptance dropped to 13% when (3) followed (4b),<br />
exactly like <strong>the</strong> English speak<strong>in</strong>g adults tested by Zondervan et al. (2009). Children were also<br />
asked to motivate <strong>the</strong>ir negative answers to ensure <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>in</strong>deed comput<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> SI when<br />
reject<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> puppets' statement.<br />
To evaluate if children's computation of SI <strong>in</strong> Condition 2 was due to <strong>the</strong> mere<br />
presence of <strong>the</strong> quantifier all <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> QUD, a control experiment was conducted. To this end,<br />
we slightly changed <strong>the</strong> QUD, as exemplified <strong>in</strong> Error! Reference source not found.:<br />
(5) Control Condition<br />
a. QUD: Were all <strong>the</strong> hot-dogs delivered?<br />
b. Target Sentence: I th<strong>in</strong>k some pizza were delivered<br />
As one can see, <strong>the</strong> QUD still conta<strong>in</strong>s <strong>the</strong> quantifier all but this time it revolves around hotdogs<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> pizzas. To make <strong>the</strong> question contextually felicitous, <strong>the</strong> story also<br />
<strong>in</strong>cluded some hot-dogs. A third group of 15 English-speak<strong>in</strong>g children participated <strong>in</strong> this<br />
experiment. Age was from 4;3 to 6;0 (Mean = 5;1). Each child was presented with 4 target<br />
trials <strong>in</strong>terspersed with fillers. Turn<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> results, <strong>the</strong> fifteen children <strong>in</strong>terviewed<br />
computed <strong>the</strong> SI associated with (5b) only 10% of <strong>the</strong> time. Children did not compute <strong>the</strong> SI<br />
associated with <strong>the</strong> quantifier some despite <strong>the</strong> occurrence of <strong>the</strong> stronger term all <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> QUD<br />
allow<strong>in</strong>g us to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> view that <strong>the</strong> computation of <strong>the</strong> SI <strong>in</strong> Experiment 1 can be<br />
attributed to <strong>the</strong> QUD ra<strong>the</strong>r than to some prim<strong>in</strong>g effect. In particular, children were not<br />
concerned with <strong>the</strong> change of focus implied by <strong>the</strong> target sentence and accepted <strong>the</strong> target<br />
sentence.<br />
Our f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs show that once <strong>the</strong> question under discussion is explicitly given nei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
developmental nor methodological differences emerge. Taken toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g<br />
literature, our results show that one contextual property, that of <strong>the</strong> QUD, can account for<br />
participants’ preferences on two apparently dist<strong>in</strong>ct phenomena: scope ambiguities and scalar<br />
implicatures. This result is an important step <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> process of understand<strong>in</strong>g how context<br />
drives <strong>in</strong>terpretation
The L<strong>in</strong>guistic Expression of Causation<br />
Ad Neeleman & Hans van de Koot (UCL)<br />
1. The mental representation of causal relations The most common def<strong>in</strong>ition of causation<br />
has three components (Lewis 1973): (i) it is a relation between a caus<strong>in</strong>g and a caused event,<br />
such that (ii) <strong>the</strong> caus<strong>in</strong>g event may not follow <strong>the</strong> caused event and (iii) if <strong>the</strong> caus<strong>in</strong>g event<br />
had not occurred <strong>the</strong> caus<strong>in</strong>g event would not have occurred ei<strong>the</strong>r. There is ample evidence<br />
that causation is primarily a tool humans use for structur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir mental model of <strong>the</strong> world<br />
(Johnson-Laird 1983, 2006). Causation cannot be l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>in</strong> nature, as it can be present <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> absence of language (Call 2004, Varley & Siegel 2002, Leslie 1984). The central question<br />
for l<strong>in</strong>guists, <strong>the</strong>n, is how <strong>the</strong> psychological notion of causation is expressed l<strong>in</strong>guistically.<br />
We propose that causative verbs do not encode a caus<strong>in</strong>g event. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>y encode a<br />
macro-event, a resultant state, and <strong>the</strong> Crucial Contribut<strong>in</strong>g Factor (CCF) <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> com<strong>in</strong>g about<br />
of <strong>the</strong> matrix event. The CCF is realized as <strong>the</strong> external argument (Re<strong>in</strong>hart 2002) and<br />
identifies which factor, out of a range of potential factors contribut<strong>in</strong>g to an outcome, is<br />
deemed by <strong>the</strong> speaker not to fall <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ceteris paribus category. As causal cha<strong>in</strong>s can be<br />
quite complex, <strong>the</strong>re are few <strong>in</strong>herent restrictions on what can function as a CCF, expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> variation of x <strong>in</strong> x eventually killed Leo (e.g. whisky, Bill, or <strong>the</strong> distance to <strong>the</strong> nearest<br />
oasis). Our proposal does not imply that language cannot express caus<strong>in</strong>g events. But when<br />
<strong>the</strong>se are expressed, this is not done through <strong>the</strong> verb, but ra<strong>the</strong>r through an adjunct, as <strong>in</strong><br />
Little Orson grew <strong>in</strong>to a big man [by eat<strong>in</strong>g Irish Oatmeal], where grow is an anticausative.<br />
2. The paradox of direct causation The standard view is that <strong>the</strong> lexical semantics of a<br />
causative verb conta<strong>in</strong>s a caus<strong>in</strong>g event. Whisky eventually killed Leo is <strong>the</strong>n taken to mean<br />
that <strong>the</strong>re is an event <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g whisky, such that it caused Leo’s death. The well-known<br />
Restriction to Direct Causation <strong>in</strong> simplex causatives (RDC) can be construed as evidence for<br />
this view, as formulat<strong>in</strong>g it requires reference to caus<strong>in</strong>g events. It follows that our proposal is<br />
falsified if <strong>the</strong> RDC is correct. However, evidence for <strong>the</strong> RDC is surpris<strong>in</strong>gly weak.<br />
The ma<strong>in</strong> source of evidence for <strong>the</strong> RDC consists of what we will call Katz effects (Katz<br />
1970): <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> context of (1), (2a) is accepted by all speakers, but (2b) is not.<br />
(1) A sheriff’s six-shooter is faultily repaired by <strong>the</strong> local gunsmith. As a result, his<br />
weapon ja<strong>ms</strong> at a critical moment and <strong>the</strong> sheriff is gunned down.<br />
(2) a. The gunsmith caused <strong>the</strong> sheriff to die.<br />
b. The gunsmith killed <strong>the</strong> sheriff.<br />
Although <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>in</strong> (1) is undoubtedly real, <strong>the</strong>re are many examples <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> RDC is<br />
violated. For <strong>in</strong>stance, a 1943 Duke Ell<strong>in</strong>gton song entitled A slip of <strong>the</strong> lip can s<strong>in</strong>k a ship<br />
describes a situation <strong>in</strong> which loose talk by sailors may allow a spy to obta<strong>in</strong> and transmit<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation that may <strong>in</strong> turn allow a foreign navy to <strong>in</strong>struct its submar<strong>in</strong>es to torpedo and<br />
s<strong>in</strong>k ships <strong>in</strong> a convoy. We conclude from examples of this type that <strong>the</strong> RDC is <strong>in</strong>correct and<br />
must <strong>the</strong>refore be attributed to <strong>in</strong>dependent factors. We discuss <strong>the</strong>se factors below.<br />
Adverbial modification is sometimes claimed to provide fur<strong>the</strong>r evidence for <strong>the</strong> RDC (see<br />
Fodor 1970 for related discussion). We will show that this claim is <strong>in</strong>correct.<br />
3. Expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g Katz effects The basis for our analysis of Katz effects is <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis that<br />
language encodes accountability for outcome through <strong>the</strong> rule <strong>in</strong> (3), where [+m] is a feature<br />
borrowed from Re<strong>in</strong>hart 2002 that expresses that <strong>the</strong> referent of an argument has a m<strong>in</strong>d.<br />
(3) Accountability: The referent of a DP specified as [+m] is held accountable for <strong>the</strong><br />
action expressed by <strong>the</strong> verb if and only if it is <strong>the</strong> CCF argument of that verb.<br />
Accountability only plays a role when a causative verb takes a [+m] subject and is <strong>the</strong>refore<br />
<strong>in</strong>applicable to <strong>the</strong> slip of <strong>the</strong> lip example, expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> absence of a Katz effect. The<br />
awkwardness of (2b) <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> context of (1) also follows, because (1) does not <strong>in</strong>vite <strong>the</strong> reader<br />
to hold <strong>the</strong> gunsmith responsible for <strong>the</strong> sheriff’s death. But tweaks of <strong>the</strong> scenario improve<br />
examples like (2b). Suppose that follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> demise of <strong>the</strong> sheriff, <strong>the</strong> gunsmith visits a
psychoanalyst because he is struggl<strong>in</strong>g with feel<strong>in</strong>gs of guilt. He might <strong>the</strong>n say I killed <strong>the</strong><br />
sheriff, mean<strong>in</strong>g that he holds hi<strong>ms</strong>elf responsible. Notice that <strong>the</strong> RDC makes <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>correct<br />
prediction that <strong>the</strong> gunsmith would under such circu<strong>ms</strong>tances know<strong>in</strong>gly utter a falsity.<br />
Katz effects also disappear if <strong>the</strong> gunsmith sabotages <strong>the</strong> sheriff’s gun because he has a<br />
long-stand<strong>in</strong>g grudge aga<strong>in</strong>st him. In such a scenario, (2b) is unobjectionable (Wolff 2003).<br />
In fact it can be shown that accountability assignment is subject to a locality condition<br />
stated over causal relations <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> mental model. In particular, ascription of accountability<br />
across participants of an <strong>in</strong>terven<strong>in</strong>g event <strong>in</strong> a causal cha<strong>in</strong> is forbidden, unless <strong>the</strong>ir actions<br />
fall <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ceteris paribus category. Thus, (2b) becomes unacceptable <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> extended sabotage<br />
scenario if we <strong>in</strong>troduce an <strong>in</strong>terven<strong>in</strong>g agent whose decisions are presented as crucial to <strong>the</strong><br />
outcome. This locality effect confir<strong>ms</strong> that accountability assignment is real.<br />
Why is cause to die different from kill? In <strong>the</strong> case of kill, a [+m] CCF is accountable for<br />
<strong>the</strong> entire macro-event encoded by <strong>the</strong> verb, which <strong>in</strong>cludes <strong>the</strong> resultant state. In <strong>the</strong> case of<br />
cause to die, <strong>the</strong> accountability of a [+m] CCF is limited to <strong>the</strong> causation event (<strong>the</strong><br />
circu<strong>ms</strong>tances lead<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> sheriff’s death) – it excludes <strong>the</strong> resultant state (<strong>the</strong> death itself)<br />
because that state is <strong>in</strong>troduced by a separate predicate.<br />
The above is sufficient to expla<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> effects that <strong>in</strong>itially motivated <strong>the</strong> RDC. However, we<br />
discuss additional factors <strong>in</strong>duc<strong>in</strong>g Katz effects, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> lexical encod<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>in</strong>struments<br />
(The gunsmith shot <strong>the</strong> sheriff is <strong>in</strong>felicitous <strong>in</strong> all contexts mentioned above).<br />
4. Test<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>the</strong> presence of a caus<strong>in</strong>g event We close our presentation with a discussion<br />
of proposals that assume that <strong>the</strong> lexical semantics of causative verbs conta<strong>in</strong>s a caus<strong>in</strong>g<br />
event. Strik<strong>in</strong>gly, even <strong>in</strong> generative semantics <strong>the</strong>re was no syntactic position for such an<br />
event. Instead, <strong>the</strong> standard assumption was (and is) that <strong>the</strong> caus<strong>in</strong>g event is encoded as part<br />
of <strong>the</strong> semantics of <strong>the</strong> CAUSE predicate (compare Dowty 1979). Similar ideas can be found <strong>in</strong><br />
Hale & Keyser 1993, Ramchand 2008, and Pylkkänen 2008. What is <strong>the</strong> evidence for this<br />
representation of <strong>the</strong> caus<strong>in</strong>g event?<br />
Consider first <strong>the</strong> claim that eventive subjects of causative verbs denote <strong>the</strong> caus<strong>in</strong>g event.<br />
This claim must be <strong>in</strong>correct, <strong>in</strong> view of examples like (4), where <strong>the</strong> relevant event follows<br />
<strong>the</strong> caused event. This is unproblematic if <strong>the</strong> eventive subject is a CCF, because <strong>the</strong> caus<strong>in</strong>g<br />
event <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> mental model can <strong>the</strong>n be people act<strong>in</strong>g on knowledge of a future event.<br />
(4) Tomorrow’s strike by London Underground staff caused mayhem on <strong>the</strong> North<br />
Circular Road dur<strong>in</strong>g this even<strong>in</strong>g’s rush hour.<br />
A second potential argument could be based on semantic restrictions on <strong>the</strong> subject. These<br />
could result from lexical specification of <strong>the</strong> putative caus<strong>in</strong>g event. However, although all<br />
lexical causatives express restrictions on <strong>the</strong> caused event (kill means ‘cause to die’), it is<br />
certa<strong>in</strong>ly not true <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> general case that <strong>the</strong>y impose restrictions on <strong>the</strong> caus<strong>in</strong>g event. At<br />
least, <strong>the</strong>re is no necessary restriction on <strong>the</strong> choice of subject. As already mentioned, a very<br />
wide variety of elements that can replace x <strong>in</strong> x eventually killed Leo.<br />
Two fur<strong>the</strong>r arguments for caus<strong>in</strong>g events <strong>in</strong> lexical semantics are presented by Pylkkänen<br />
(2008), who argues, on <strong>the</strong> basis Japanese and F<strong>in</strong>nish, that a caus<strong>in</strong>g event can be present,<br />
even if no associated external argument is <strong>in</strong>troduced. In <strong>the</strong> Japanese case, <strong>the</strong> claim is that<br />
certa<strong>in</strong> adjuncts are excluded <strong>in</strong> anticausative contexts but permitted <strong>in</strong> adversity<br />
constructions, where <strong>the</strong>y are licensed by a hidden caus<strong>in</strong>g event. We show that this argument<br />
is based on an <strong>in</strong>correct premise, as <strong>the</strong> relevant type of modifier does <strong>in</strong> fact show up with<br />
anticausatives. In <strong>the</strong> F<strong>in</strong>nish case, sluic<strong>in</strong>g is claimed to identify a hidden caus<strong>in</strong>g event <strong>in</strong><br />
desiderative constructions. This analysis makes <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>correct prediction that <strong>the</strong> same k<strong>in</strong>d of<br />
sluic<strong>in</strong>g should also be possible <strong>in</strong> uncontroversially causative constructions, contrary to fact.<br />
5. Conclusions Causative verbs do not encode a caus<strong>in</strong>g event. This is because subjects of<br />
causative verbs express a CCF (which is associated with accountability when [+m]). If<br />
expressed at all, caus<strong>in</strong>g events surface as adjuncts.
��������� ���������� ������� �� ������� �� ������<br />
����� ������ ������ ���� �� ������ ����������� ����� ���� ������� ��� ������ ���<br />
��������� �� ������ ��������� �� ������ ����� �� ��������� ����������� �� ��������<br />
�������� �� ��� ���� ������� ���� ��� ��������������� �� ������� ������ ���������� ���<br />
�� ��������� �� ���������������� �������� ���� �� ���������� ���������� ����������� ���<br />
���� ����� ��� �������� ��� ��������� �� ���� �������� �� ���� ��� ��������������� ��<br />
��������� �� ������� ���� ����� ������������� �� ��� ������ ����������<br />
��� ��� �� ���� ���� �� �� ����������� ������� ���������� ������� ����� �� ����� ������<br />
��� ������������ ��� ������������ ��� ������� ��� ��� ��������������� �� ������� ��<br />
������ ���������� �� ������� ��������� ���� ����������� ���� ���������� ������� �� ���<br />
������� ��� ��� �������� ������� �� ��� ������� ����<br />
��� ����� �� ���������� � ������������ ���� ��� ���������� ���� �� �������������<br />
���������� ���� ��� ���������� �� ��������� ������������� �� �������� �� � ������ �� ������<br />
������� �������� �������� ������� ��� ����������� �� ��������� �� � ������� ��� �� ���������<br />
���� ��� ������� ���� ����������� ���������� ����� ��� ���� ���� ����� �� �������� ���<br />
����������� ��� ������ ������� ���� �� ��� ��������� ���� �� ����� ��� ������������ ���������<br />
����� ��� �� ���� ����� ��� �������� ��� �������������������� ����������� ������� ��� ���<br />
���� �� ��������� �� ����� ��� ����� ����������� ��� � ���������� ������� ����������<br />
����������� ��� ������� �� ��� ������������� ����� �� ������<br />
���������� � ����� ���� ��������� �������� ��� ������������� ��������� �� ���������<br />
���� ����� ����������� �������� ���� ������������ ���� ��� ���� ��� ��������� �����<br />
����������� � ������� ���� ��������� ���� ����� ���������� ��� �������� ����������<br />
������� ������ ��������� ������� ��� �������� ���������� ��� ���� ������ ���������� ����<br />
��� �������� ��������������� �������� ����� ������� ������ ���� ��� ���� ���� ��� �����<br />
����������� �� ����� ���������� �� ���� ��� �� ����� ��� ���������� ������������<br />
��� ��� � �� ����� ���� �� ������� ����� ���� � ���������<br />
���� ����� �������� ��� ��� ���� ���� �� ��� � �� ����<br />
��������<br />
���� �����<br />
���� ��� ����� ������ ��� ���� ���� �� ��� � ���� ����� ������ �<br />
������������ ����������<br />
��� �� ���� ����� ����� ���� �� ������� ����� ���� �<br />
����� ����� ����� �������� ��� ��� ���� ���� �� ��� �<br />
��������� ��������<br />
�� ���� ���� �����<br />
����� ����� ��� ����� ������ ��� ���� ���� �� ��� � ���� ����� ������ �<br />
�������� ����������<br />
���������� � ����� �� ���������� ����� ��� ��������� �� ����� �������� ���������� ����<br />
����� ���������� ��� ��� ����������� �� ���������� ��������<br />
��� ��� � ��<br />
����<br />
������<br />
������<br />
�����<br />
���<br />
��<br />
���<br />
�����<br />
��� ���<br />
��������<br />
���� ����<br />
�<br />
�<br />
������<br />
������<br />
���� ��� ������ ���� ��� ��� ���� ���� � ���� ����� ������ �<br />
������������ ����������<br />
��� � ����<br />
�����<br />
�������<br />
���<br />
Bruno Nicemboim (Potsdam)<br />
������<br />
������<br />
�����<br />
���<br />
�<br />
��<br />
���<br />
�����<br />
��� ���<br />
��������<br />
���� ����<br />
�������<br />
�����<br />
�<br />
�<br />
������<br />
������
�������<br />
�����<br />
����� ��� ��� ������ ���� ��� ��� ���� ���� � ���� ����� ������ �<br />
�������� ����������<br />
���������� � ������� ���� ��������� ����������� ��� ���������� �� ��������� ������������ ��<br />
��������� ���� ����� ����������� �������� �� ����������� ������� ������������� �����<br />
����� ��� ������� ����� ��� ������ ���� ������ ������� �� ���������� � ���� ����<br />
��������� ���� ��� ������� ��� ������������� �� �������� ��������� ���� ����� ������<br />
����� �� ��� ����� �� ��� ����������� ��������� ��� ��� ������� �� ��� �������� ��������<br />
��� ��������� ���� ������ ��� ��� �������� ��������� ���� ����� ���������� ���� ��� ���<br />
��������� ���� �������� ���� ��� ���������� �� ��������� ������������ �� ����������� ��<br />
����� ������� ����� �� ��� ���������� ���� ��� ���� ���� ����������� �� ��� ���������<br />
��������� ���������� �� ��� ��������� ������������ ������� ��� ����������� ��� �����<br />
��������� �������<br />
��������� ��� ������� ���� ����������� � ��� � �������� ����� ���� ����� ���<br />
����� ��� ��� ���� �������� ��������� ��� � ����� ���� ��� ��������������� �� �����<br />
���������� �� ��� �� ����� �����������������<br />
��������� ����� ����������� ����� �� � ����� �������� �� ���������� �� ��� ���� ��<br />
��� ������ ���������� ���� ����� ���������� ��� ������� �� ���������� ������� �������� ����<br />
������ ��������� ������������ ������ � ������ �� ��� ������ ��� ����� ��� �������������<br />
�� ��������� ���� ����� ����������� ���� ���� ���� ��� ����������� ��������� ����������<br />
������ ��������� ��� ������ ���������� �� ��������� ������������ �� ����� ���������� ���<br />
�� ���� ������ ���� �� ����������� ��������� ����� ������� ����������� ���� �������� ����<br />
��� ���������� �� ��������� ������������ �� ��������� �� ��� ��������������� �� �����<br />
�����������<br />
����������<br />
����������� �� ��� ���� �� �� ������� ��������� ����������� ��� ������ ������� ���������<br />
���<br />
��������� �� ������� �� ��� ����������� ������� ������ ��� ���� �������� � ����������<br />
������������ ������ ��� ���������� ����� ��������<br />
��������� �� ������� ����������� �������� ��� ����������� �������� ��� ��������������<br />
�� ���� ������������ ����� �������<br />
����� �� ������� ����������� �� ��������� �� ������� ��� ������� ����<br />
���� �� ��� ����������� ��� ��� ������� �� ������� ���������� ���������� �� ����������<br />
����������� ��� ������� ���� ������ ����������� �� ����������� ���� ��� ������ �������<br />
�� ��� ������� ���������� �������� ������ ��� ����� �������� ���� ���� ��������<br />
�������� �� ������� � ������� ��� ������������ ������� ������� ����� ��� ���������� ��<br />
�������� �������������<br />
�
Leticia Pablos, Bobby Ruijgrok, Jenny Doetjes & Lisa Cheng (Leiden)<br />
Process<strong>in</strong>g cataphoric pronouns <strong>in</strong> Dutch: an ERP study<br />
The process<strong>in</strong>g of cataphoric pronouns has been shown to follow <strong>the</strong> same mechanis<strong>ms</strong> as<br />
<strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of wh-dependencies <strong>in</strong> that <strong>the</strong> parser actively searches [1] for an antecedent to<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpret <strong>the</strong> pronoun with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sentence, except <strong>in</strong> those cases where <strong>the</strong> pronoun must obey<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C of <strong>the</strong> b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ory and cannot be c-commanded by <strong>the</strong> antecedent [2]. This is <strong>the</strong><br />
case for <strong>the</strong> Gender Mismatch (GMM) effect, named after a slowdown effect that shows that <strong>the</strong><br />
parser tries to l<strong>in</strong>k an antecedent to a preced<strong>in</strong>g pronoun only when a pronoun can be bound by it<br />
[3,4]. Most of <strong>the</strong> studies that tested whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re is an active search triggered for an antecedent<br />
after encounter<strong>in</strong>g cataphoric pronouns used behavioral techniques such as self-paced read<strong>in</strong>g or<br />
eye-track<strong>in</strong>g [5,6] and only a few used <strong>the</strong> electroencephalography (EEG) technique [7].<br />
The current study on Dutch uses Event Related Potentials (ERP) to exam<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong><br />
process<strong>in</strong>g of sentences with cataphoric pronouns as <strong>the</strong> parser looks for an antecedent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
upcom<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>put. If <strong>the</strong> parser attempts to b<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> pronouns zijn and haar <strong>in</strong> (1a) and (1b) to <strong>the</strong><br />
mascul<strong>in</strong>e antecedent Lodewijk, we expect a GMM effect at <strong>the</strong> position of <strong>the</strong> potential<br />
antecedent <strong>in</strong> (1b). On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, if <strong>the</strong> parser respects Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C of <strong>the</strong> b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>in</strong><br />
(1c) and (1d), we do not expect to f<strong>in</strong>d any ERP difference at <strong>the</strong> position of <strong>the</strong> potential<br />
antecedent Lodewijk show<strong>in</strong>g that no l<strong>in</strong>k has tried to be made between <strong>the</strong> pronouns hij and zij<br />
and <strong>the</strong> antecedent. Additional proper nouns such as Mirjam and Thomas <strong>in</strong> (1) were <strong>in</strong>cluded to<br />
guarantee that all pronouns had an antecedent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sentence.<br />
(1) No constra<strong>in</strong>t match<br />
a. Zijnj assistenten kwamen erachter dat Lodewijkj Boer geen prijsw<strong>in</strong>naar<br />
His assistants realized that Lodewijkmasc Boer no prizew<strong>in</strong>ner<br />
Geselecteerd had, maar Mirjami had geen <strong>in</strong>teresse <strong>in</strong> de roddel.<br />
Selected had but Mirjamfem had no <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> gossip.<br />
No constra<strong>in</strong>t mismatch<br />
b. Haari assistenten kwamen erachter dat Lodewijkj Boer geen prijsw<strong>in</strong>naar<br />
Her assistants realized that Lodewijkmasc Boer no prizew<strong>in</strong>ner,<br />
geselecteerd had, maar Mirjami had geen <strong>in</strong>teresse <strong>in</strong> de roddel.<br />
selected had, but Mirjamfem had no <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> gossip.<br />
Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C match<br />
c. Hiji kwam erachter dat Lodewijkj Boer geen prijsw<strong>in</strong>naar<br />
He realized that Lodewijkmasc Boer no prize w<strong>in</strong>ner<br />
geselecteerd had, maar Thomasi had geen <strong>in</strong>teresse <strong>in</strong> de roddel.<br />
selected had, but Thomasmasc had no <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> gossip.<br />
Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C mismatch<br />
d. Ziji kwam erachter dat Lodewijkj Boer geen prijsw<strong>in</strong>naar<br />
She realized that Lodewijkmasc Boer no prize w<strong>in</strong>ner,<br />
geselecteerd had, maar Mirjami had geen <strong>in</strong>teresse <strong>in</strong> de roddel.<br />
selected had, but Mirjamfem had no <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> gossip.
We conducted an ERP experiment where EEG was cont<strong>in</strong>uously recorded while native<br />
speakers (n=24) of Dutch read silently 36 sentences such as (1a-d) <strong>in</strong>terspersed with 35 fillers<br />
and subsequently answered a comprehension question for every sentence. As illustrated <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accompany<strong>in</strong>g leftmost figure, results show that <strong>the</strong>re is a central anterior negativity <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> 200-<br />
600<strong>ms</strong> w<strong>in</strong>dow <strong>in</strong> (1b) condition with respect to (1a) at <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t of <strong>the</strong> potential antecedent<br />
Lodewijk (significant 3-way <strong>in</strong>teraction between factors Condition, Hemisphere (left, Right,<br />
Central) and electrode position (Anterior, Middle, Posterior); F(12,276)=2,05, p=0.045)). On <strong>the</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r hand, comparison between conditions (1c) and (1d) yielded no significant difference <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
ERP wavefor<strong>ms</strong> as shown <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> rightmost figure.<br />
Amplitude (μV)<br />
-10<br />
-5<br />
0<br />
GMM Exp - Condition A vs. B at "Lodewijk" - Electrode Fz<br />
5<br />
10<br />
A<br />
B<br />
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800<br />
Time (<strong>ms</strong>)<br />
Amplitude (μV)<br />
-10<br />
-5<br />
0<br />
Time (<strong>ms</strong>)<br />
GMM Exp - Condition C vs. D at "Lodewijk" - Electrode Fz<br />
5<br />
10<br />
C<br />
D<br />
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800<br />
Time (<strong>ms</strong>)<br />
The long susta<strong>in</strong>ed negativity generated at <strong>the</strong> antecedent Lodewijk for (1b) condition<br />
suggests that <strong>the</strong> parser attempts to l<strong>in</strong>k <strong>the</strong> antecedent to <strong>the</strong> preced<strong>in</strong>g pronoun haar and fails to<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpret it at <strong>the</strong> antecedent due to <strong>the</strong> gender mismatch between <strong>the</strong> pronoun -marked for<br />
fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e gender - and <strong>the</strong> antecedent Lodewijk – a name <strong>in</strong> mascul<strong>in</strong>e gender. The same effect is<br />
absent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r conditions, which shows that <strong>the</strong> parser does not try to l<strong>in</strong>k <strong>the</strong> antecedent<br />
with <strong>the</strong> preced<strong>in</strong>g pronoun <strong>in</strong> (1c) and (1d) so that pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C is respected. Overall results<br />
confirm <strong>the</strong> active search mechanism for an antecedent started whenever <strong>the</strong>re is a pronoun that<br />
must be bound <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> local context as <strong>in</strong> (1b). We discuss implications of <strong>the</strong>se results <strong>in</strong> light of<br />
<strong>the</strong> accumulated knowledge on long-distance dependency process<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
References:<br />
[1] Clifton, C, & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehend<strong>in</strong>g sentences with long distance dependencies.<br />
In Carlson, G.N. & Tanenhaus, M. eds., L<strong>in</strong>guistic Structure <strong>in</strong> Language Process<strong>in</strong>g, 273-317.<br />
[2] Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g, Dordrecht: Foris Publications.<br />
[3]Van Gompel, R.P.G., & Liversedge, S.P. (2003). The <strong>in</strong>fluence of morphological <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn<strong>in</strong>g, Memory,<br />
and Cognition, 29, 128-139.<br />
[4] Kazan<strong>in</strong>a, N., Lau, E., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The Effect of<br />
Syntactic Constra<strong>in</strong>ts on <strong>the</strong> Process<strong>in</strong>g of Backwards Anaphora. Journal of Memory and<br />
Language, 56, 384–409.<br />
[5] Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of <strong>the</strong> application of b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g constra<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> reference<br />
resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542-562.<br />
[6] Aoshima, S. , Yoshida, M. & C.Phillips (2009). Incremental Process<strong>in</strong>g of Coreference and<br />
B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Japanese. Syntax, 12, 93-134.<br />
[7] Kre<strong>in</strong>er, H. Mohr, S. Kessler, K. and S. Garrod. (2008) Can context affect gender process<strong>in</strong>g?<br />
ERP Evidence about differences between lexical and stereotypical gender. Poster presented at<br />
Bra<strong>in</strong> Talk, Lund.
Daniel Parker & Sol Lago (Maryland)<br />
Retrieval Interference <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Resolution of Anaphoric PRO<br />
Recent research on <strong>the</strong> memory operations used <strong>in</strong> real-time language comprehension<br />
has revealed a selective profile for retrieval <strong>in</strong>terference effects. Dependencies such as<br />
subject-verb agreement show strong facilitatory <strong>in</strong>terference effects, as predicted by misretrieval<br />
due to partial cue-match<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a content-addressable memory architecture [1,2]. On<br />
<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, previous studies of reflexive anaphors have not found facilitation effects.<br />
They have ei<strong>the</strong>r found no effects of structurally <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedents [3,4,5,6], or <strong>the</strong>y<br />
have found <strong>in</strong>hibition effects [3,7,8], which are not directly predicted by <strong>the</strong> cue-based<br />
retrieval model. This profile has been taken to suggest <strong>the</strong> use of different retrieval<br />
mechanis<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> two cases, despite superficially similar structural and morphological<br />
requirements [5]. The reasons for this contrast rema<strong>in</strong> unresolved. The contrast may reflect<br />
<strong>the</strong> fact that anaphoric dependencies are <strong>in</strong>terpreted whereas agreement is not. Or it may<br />
reflect differential use of non-structural features as retrieval cues. The licens<strong>in</strong>g of anaphoric<br />
PRO provides a good test of <strong>the</strong> candidate retrieval mechanis<strong>ms</strong> because it shares properties<br />
with both agreement and reflexive b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g. Results from three studies us<strong>in</strong>g off-l<strong>in</strong>e<br />
judgments, computational model<strong>in</strong>g and self-paced read<strong>in</strong>g confirm <strong>the</strong> structural constra<strong>in</strong>ts<br />
on licens<strong>in</strong>g PRO, but show an on-l<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>terference profile similar to agreement, suggest<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> use of non-structural cues for retriev<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> antecedent of PRO. These results provide <strong>the</strong><br />
first case of facilitatory <strong>in</strong>terference effects <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> resolution of anaphoric dependencies.<br />
The licens<strong>in</strong>g of PRO <strong>in</strong> adjunct clauses is subject to structural constra<strong>in</strong>ts. The<br />
controller must be <strong>the</strong> subject of <strong>the</strong> next higher clause (1).<br />
1a. Johni read <strong>the</strong> report after PROi dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g his coffee.<br />
1b. *The report confused Johni after PROi dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g his coffee.<br />
This constra<strong>in</strong>t and <strong>the</strong> anaphoric nature of <strong>the</strong> dependency both suggest that retrieval might<br />
proceed <strong>in</strong> a structure-sensitive fashion, similar to reflexive licens<strong>in</strong>g. Conversely, <strong>the</strong> search<br />
for a controller shares at least two properties with subject-verb agreement. First, onl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
detection of PRO and subsequent retrieval of <strong>the</strong> controller is triggered by a verb ra<strong>the</strong>r than<br />
by an <strong>in</strong>dependent anaphoric element. Second, selectional restrictions from <strong>the</strong> gerundive<br />
verb <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> control clause (e.g. it may show a bias for a [+animate] subject) may provide<br />
additional retrieval cues. Previous studies of agreement have shown strong facilitatory<br />
<strong>in</strong>terference effects, attributed to fallible cue-based retrieval mechanis<strong>ms</strong> (e.g. [2]). If PRO<br />
behaves similarly to agreement, <strong>the</strong>n we should f<strong>in</strong>d evidence of facilitatory <strong>in</strong>terference<br />
from structurally <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedents, due to partial cue-match<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
We compared <strong>the</strong> profiles of subject-verb agreement and adjunct control <strong>in</strong> a design<br />
with 8 conditions, us<strong>in</strong>g 48 sets of sentences like those <strong>in</strong> (2). Conditions (2a-d) provided a<br />
basic profile for agreement <strong>in</strong>terference. The ma<strong>in</strong> clause subject NP ei<strong>the</strong>r agreed (2a/b) or<br />
disagreed (2c/d) with <strong>the</strong> highlighted verb, and we manipulated <strong>the</strong> number of an <strong>in</strong>terven<strong>in</strong>g<br />
relative clause subject (‘attractor’) to ei<strong>the</strong>r match or mismatch <strong>the</strong> critical verb. This allowed<br />
us to test for <strong>the</strong> ‘illusions of grammaticality’ observed <strong>in</strong> previous studies. Conditions (2e-h)<br />
were designed to test <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of anaphoric PRO us<strong>in</strong>g maximally similar<br />
configurations to (2a-d). We <strong>in</strong>dependently manipulated <strong>the</strong> animacy of <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> clause<br />
subject (correct controller) and <strong>the</strong> animacy of <strong>the</strong> relative clause subject (<strong>in</strong>correct<br />
controller). The <strong>in</strong>animate NPs were chosen such that <strong>the</strong>y could be <strong>the</strong> subject of <strong>the</strong> critical<br />
verb <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> control clause, although <strong>the</strong>y might be dispreferred due to an animacy bias. An<br />
emphatic reflexive requir<strong>in</strong>g an animate, gender match<strong>in</strong>g NP antecedent as <strong>the</strong> local subject<br />
(PRO) served as a probe to determ<strong>in</strong>e whe<strong>the</strong>r an animate NP was retrieved as <strong>the</strong> subject of<br />
<strong>the</strong> adjunct clause.<br />
1
2a/b: The doctor that <strong>the</strong> {researcher/reports} evaluated extensively was commended [after<br />
PRO disprov<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> controversial <strong>the</strong>ory at <strong>the</strong> research <strong>in</strong>stitute <strong>in</strong> Europe].<br />
2c/d: The experiment that <strong>the</strong> {researchers/report} evaluated extensively were commended<br />
[after PRO disprov<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> controversial <strong>the</strong>ory at <strong>the</strong> research <strong>in</strong>stitute <strong>in</strong> Europe].<br />
2e/f: The doctor that <strong>the</strong> {researcher/report} evaluated extensively was commended [after<br />
PRO disprov<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> controversial <strong>the</strong>ory hi<strong>ms</strong>elf at <strong>the</strong> research <strong>in</strong>stitute <strong>in</strong> Europe].<br />
2g/h: The experiment that <strong>the</strong> {researcher/report} evaluated extensively was commended<br />
[after PRO disprov<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> controversial <strong>the</strong>ory hi<strong>ms</strong>elf at <strong>the</strong> research <strong>in</strong>stitute <strong>in</strong><br />
Europe].<br />
Experiment 1 (off-l<strong>in</strong>e acceptability judgment, n=24) confirmed that PRO <strong>in</strong> an<br />
adjunct clause must be controlled by <strong>the</strong> next higher subject. Experiment 2 (computational<br />
model<strong>in</strong>g) used <strong>the</strong> ACT-R parser to establish predictions from a cue-based retrieval <strong>the</strong>ory.<br />
The simulations predict facilitatory <strong>in</strong>terference effects for both <strong>the</strong> agreement conditions<br />
(2a-d) and <strong>the</strong> adjunct control conditions (2e-h). Interference <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> agreement conditions is<br />
predicted <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of process<strong>in</strong>g time at <strong>the</strong> verbal region and error rate <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> retrieval of<br />
attractors. In <strong>the</strong> adjunct control conditions, simulations predict access to both <strong>the</strong> licit and<br />
illicit subject NPs at <strong>the</strong> adjunct verb. Facilitatory <strong>in</strong>terference effects similar to those shown<br />
for agreement are predicted <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of process<strong>in</strong>g time at <strong>the</strong> reflexive, and error rate <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
retrieval of a structurally <strong>in</strong>accessible animate NP subject.<br />
Experiment 3 (self-paced read<strong>in</strong>g, n=32) tested <strong>the</strong> predictions of <strong>the</strong> model. In <strong>the</strong><br />
agreement conditions (2a-d), l<strong>in</strong>ear mixed-effects model<strong>in</strong>g revealed effects of both<br />
grammaticality and attractor number (grammaticality: t=-2.043; attractor number: t=2.434;<br />
ps
Umesh Patil (Potsdam), Shravan Vasishth (Potsdam) & Richard Lewis (Michigan)<br />
Early effect of retrieval <strong>in</strong>terference on reflexive b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
The onl<strong>in</strong>e application of Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple A of <strong>the</strong> b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ory is claimed to be <strong>in</strong>fallible<br />
to memory phenomena like retrieval <strong>in</strong>terference from antecedents that are <strong>in</strong>accessible <strong>in</strong><br />
ter<strong>ms</strong> of <strong>the</strong> b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ory (Phillips, Wagers, & Lau, 2009; Dillon, 2011). Sturt (2003)<br />
and Xiang, Dillon, and Phillips (2009) report a set of studies with English reflexives and<br />
conclude that if <strong>the</strong>re is any effect of retrieval <strong>in</strong>terference from grammatically <strong>in</strong>accessible<br />
antecedents, it appears only dur<strong>in</strong>g later stages of process<strong>in</strong>g. Based on <strong>the</strong>se results,<br />
Phillips et al. (2009) and Dillon (2011) propose that reflexive b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g is immune to<br />
<strong>in</strong>terference dur<strong>in</strong>g early stages of process<strong>in</strong>g, because <strong>the</strong> antecedent of a reflexive is<br />
retrieved from memory us<strong>in</strong>g strictly syntactic <strong>in</strong>formation, and that agreement features<br />
like gender and number are completely ignored <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> antecedent search process.<br />
On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, a large body of work <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> doma<strong>in</strong> of dependency resolution <strong>in</strong><br />
sentence process<strong>in</strong>g has shown that <strong>the</strong> memory retrieval process utilizes non-syntactic<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation as well. Van Dyke and colleagues (Van Dyke & Lewis, 2003; Van Dyke<br />
& McElree, 2006) have shown that semantic properties of nouns (e.g. animacy feature)<br />
and selectional requirements of verbs are utilized <strong>in</strong> retrievals. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> process of<br />
b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g English reflexives <strong>in</strong>side picture noun phrases (Runner, Sussman, & Tanenhaus,<br />
2006) and Ch<strong>in</strong>ese reflexives (Chen, Jäger, & Vasishth, 2011) is shown to be <strong>in</strong>fluenced<br />
by <strong>the</strong> agreement features of <strong>the</strong> grammatically <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent. In fact, recently<br />
Cunn<strong>in</strong>gs and Felser (2011) have shown that high memory span readers occasionally<br />
consider <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedents dur<strong>in</strong>g b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g argument reflexives. In <strong>the</strong> light of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
results, <strong>the</strong> strictly syntactic retrieval account see<strong>ms</strong> to be an exception, which calls for<br />
a specialized retrieval mechanism to expla<strong>in</strong> only a limited set of results.<br />
We formulated <strong>the</strong> question—what type of retrieval cues are used <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> reflexive b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
process—<strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> <strong>the</strong> cue-based retrieval (CBR) <strong>the</strong>ory (Lewis & Vasishth, 2005). The<br />
CBR <strong>the</strong>ory provides a computational architecture for model<strong>in</strong>g sentence process<strong>in</strong>g phenomena.<br />
The <strong>the</strong>ory is based on <strong>the</strong> memory and process<strong>in</strong>g pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of ACT-R, a cognitive<br />
architecture developed for model<strong>in</strong>g general cognitive processes. We implemented<br />
two CBR models of reflexive b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> English—model-1 that uses strictly syntactic cues<br />
and, model-2 that uses syntactic cues as well as gender mark<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> reflexive to identify<br />
its antecedent. We also ran an eye track<strong>in</strong>g study to evaluate <strong>the</strong> predictions of <strong>the</strong> two<br />
models.<br />
The models’ predictions were generated for <strong>the</strong> four conditions (2x2 design; factors:<br />
accessible NP match/mismatch for gender x <strong>in</strong>accessible NP match/mismatch for gender)<br />
listed <strong>in</strong> (1). The predictions of <strong>the</strong> models are <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of: (i) antecedent retrieval<br />
time and (ii) accuracy <strong>in</strong> retriev<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> grammatical antecedent. Model-1 predicts no<br />
<strong>in</strong>terference effect, whereas, model-2 predicts an <strong>in</strong>terference effect <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of retrieval<br />
times and retrieval accuracies.<br />
(1) a. Accessible-match/<strong>in</strong>accessible-match: The tough soldier that Fred treated <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> military hospital <strong>in</strong>troduced hi<strong>ms</strong>elf to all <strong>the</strong> nurses.<br />
b. Accessible-match/<strong>in</strong>accessible-mismatch: The tough soldier that Katie treated<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> military hospital <strong>in</strong>troduced hi<strong>ms</strong>elf to all <strong>the</strong> nurses.<br />
c. Accessible-mismatch/<strong>in</strong>accessible-match: The tough soldier that Katie treated<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> military hospital <strong>in</strong>troduced herself to all <strong>the</strong> nurses.<br />
d. Accessible-mismatch/<strong>in</strong>accessible-mismatch: The tough soldier that Fred<br />
treated <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> military hospital <strong>in</strong>troduced herself to all <strong>the</strong> nurses.
We ran an eye track<strong>in</strong>g study (n=40) with <strong>the</strong> four conditions listed above, to evaluate<br />
<strong>the</strong> predictions of <strong>the</strong> two models, assum<strong>in</strong>g that early and late effects are dist<strong>in</strong>guishable<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> eye track<strong>in</strong>g measures. As predicted by model-2, <strong>the</strong> study showed an early effect of<br />
<strong>in</strong>terference from <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedent <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong> of first-pass regression probability;<br />
i.e. a gender match between <strong>the</strong> reflexive and <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>accessible NP (1a and 1c) <strong>in</strong>duced<br />
a significantly higher (p=0.038) proportion of first-pass regressions from <strong>the</strong> reflexive <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> sentence. Although o<strong>the</strong>r early eye movements measures did not show any significant<br />
effect, a regression cont<strong>in</strong>gent analysis of first-fixation durations showed a pattern of<br />
fixations that was consistent with <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terference predictions of model-2.<br />
In sum, <strong>the</strong> eye track<strong>in</strong>g results are consistent with <strong>the</strong> predictions of <strong>the</strong> model that<br />
utilizes both syntactic and gender <strong>in</strong>formation to identify <strong>the</strong> antecedent of a reflexive.<br />
Moreover, <strong>the</strong> early <strong>in</strong>terference effect found <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> current study is not consistent with <strong>the</strong><br />
claim that <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedents are not considered dur<strong>in</strong>g earlier stages of process<strong>in</strong>g<br />
(Sturt, 2003; Phillips et al., 2009; Dillon, 2011). We conclude that a strictly syntactic<br />
search mechanism is overly selective and, hence, unable to account for <strong>the</strong> data reported<br />
here and <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r studies like Cunn<strong>in</strong>gs and Felser (2011) and Badecker and Straub (2002).<br />
References<br />
Badecker, W., & Straub, K.(2002). The process<strong>in</strong>g role of structural constra<strong>in</strong>ts on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn<strong>in</strong>g, Memory,<br />
and Cognition, 28 (4), 748–769.<br />
Chen, Z., Jäger, L., & Vasishth, S. (2011). How structure sensitive is <strong>the</strong> parser? Evidence<br />
from Mandar<strong>in</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese. In B. Stolterfoht & S. Fea<strong>the</strong>rston (Eds.), Empirical approaches<br />
to l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>the</strong>ory: Studies of mean<strong>in</strong>g and structure. Berl<strong>in</strong>: Mouton de Gruyter. (<strong>in</strong><br />
press)<br />
Cunn<strong>in</strong>gs, I., & Felser, C. (2011). The role of work<strong>in</strong>g memory <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of reflexives.<br />
Language and Cognitive Processes. (<strong>in</strong> press)<br />
Dillon, B. (2011). Structured access <strong>in</strong> sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,<br />
Maryland.<br />
Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S.(2005). An activation-based model of sentence process<strong>in</strong>g as skilled<br />
memory retrieval. Cognitive Science: A Multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary Journal, 29 (3), 375–419.<br />
Phillips, C., Wagers, M. W., & Lau, E. F.(2009). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility<br />
<strong>in</strong> real time language comprehension. Language and <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> Compass.<br />
Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K.(2006). Process<strong>in</strong>g reflexives and pronouns<br />
<strong>in</strong> picture noun phrase. Cognitive Science, 30 (2), 193–241.<br />
Sturt, P.(2003). The time-course of <strong>the</strong> application of b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g constra<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> reference resolution.<br />
Journal of Memory and Language, 48 (3), 542–562.<br />
Van Dyke, J. A., & Lewis, R. L.(2003). Dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g effects of structure and decay on attachment<br />
and repair: A cue-based pars<strong>in</strong>g account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities.<br />
Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 285–316.<br />
Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B.(2006). Retrieval <strong>in</strong>terference <strong>in</strong> sentence comprehension. Journal<br />
of Memory and Language, 55, 157–166.<br />
Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2009). Illusory licens<strong>in</strong>g effects across dependency types:<br />
Erp evidence. Bra<strong>in</strong> and Language, 108 (1), 40–55.
Syntactic constra<strong>in</strong>ts on <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of pronouns<br />
Syntactic constra<strong>in</strong>ts affect<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation of pronouns <strong>in</strong>clude, among o<strong>the</strong>rs, <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>ear<br />
distance between a pronoun and a potential antecedent (e.g. Cunn<strong>in</strong>gs et al., 2011) and<br />
condition B of <strong>the</strong> b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ory (Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky, 1981). Little is known, however, about how<br />
<strong>the</strong>se potentially compet<strong>in</strong>g constra<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong>teract dur<strong>in</strong>g real-time sentence comprehension. We<br />
will report <strong>the</strong> results from an eye-movement monitor<strong>in</strong>g study <strong>in</strong>vestigat<strong>in</strong>g when dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
process<strong>in</strong>g local and/or non-local antecedents for pronouns are considered <strong>in</strong> different types<br />
of syntactic environment.<br />
B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g condition B demands that (non-reflexive) pronouns must not be bound with<strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir local b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g doma<strong>in</strong>, which should exclude David from <strong>the</strong> set of candidate antecedents<br />
for him <strong>in</strong> sentences like (1) below.<br />
(1) Nicki th<strong>in</strong>ks that Davidk likes himi/*k.<br />
Clare Patterson & Claudia Felser (Potsdam)<br />
Pronouns <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> syntactic environments appear to be exempt from condition B, however.<br />
These <strong>in</strong>clude so-called ‘short distance pronouns’ (henceforth, SDPs) <strong>in</strong> sentences such as (2)<br />
below, where ei<strong>the</strong>r Nick or David can be <strong>in</strong>terpreted as coreferential with <strong>the</strong> pronoun him.<br />
(2) Nicki saw Davidk put <strong>the</strong> cat beside himi/k.<br />
Possible reasons as to why SDPs might be exempt from condition B <strong>in</strong>clude proposals to <strong>the</strong><br />
effect that prepositional phrases such as beside him <strong>in</strong> (2), or certa<strong>in</strong> k<strong>in</strong>ds of (VP-<strong>in</strong>ternal)<br />
aspectual phrases, can be b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g doma<strong>in</strong>s (Hestvik, 1991; Tenny, 2004). Experimental<br />
evidence for <strong>the</strong> referential ambiguity of SDPs has been reported by Seker<strong>in</strong>a et al. (2004).<br />
Previous research on <strong>the</strong> role of condition B <strong>in</strong> onl<strong>in</strong>e pronoun resolution has yielded a<br />
number of different hypo<strong>the</strong>ses. Based on results from cross-modal prim<strong>in</strong>g, Nicol and<br />
Sw<strong>in</strong>ney (1989) argued that b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g pr<strong>in</strong>ciples act as an <strong>in</strong>itial filter on <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
pronouns, such that only antecedents that are licensed by condition B are considered dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
process<strong>in</strong>g. An alternative view was put forward by Badecker and Straub (2002), who<br />
suggested that syntactically ‘<strong>in</strong>accessible’ antecedents for pronouns are also <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>itial candidate set. F<strong>in</strong>ally, if Sturt’s (2003) f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs on <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g of reflexives (which<br />
are subject to b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g condition A) carry over to pronouns, <strong>the</strong>n condition B should act as an<br />
early but defeasible filter, with <strong>in</strong>accessible antecedents potentially be<strong>in</strong>g considered at later<br />
process<strong>in</strong>g stages only.<br />
34 native speakers of English were presented with sentences which conta<strong>in</strong>ed an<br />
object pronoun (him or her) and two potential sentence-<strong>in</strong>ternal antecedents. Gender<br />
congruence between <strong>the</strong> pronoun and <strong>the</strong> proper names was manipulated (match vs.<br />
mismatch) to serve as a diagnostic for referential dependency formation. In Experiment 1,<br />
‘condition B’ type sentences were used (see examples 3a-c):<br />
(3) a. DOUBLE MATCH<br />
John remembered that Mark had taught him a new song on <strong>the</strong> guitar.<br />
b. LOCAL MISMATCH<br />
John remembered that Jane had taught him a new song on <strong>the</strong> guitar.<br />
c. NON-LOCAL MISMATCH<br />
Jane remembered that John had taught him a new song on <strong>the</strong> guitar.<br />
In Experiment 2, sentences conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g SDPs were used (examples 4a-c):
(4) a. DOUBLE MATCH<br />
Barry saw Gav<strong>in</strong> place a gun near him on <strong>the</strong> ground with great care.<br />
b. LOCAL MISMATCH<br />
Barry saw Megan place a gun near him on <strong>the</strong> ground with great care.<br />
c. NON-LOCAL MISMATCH<br />
Megan saw Barry place a gun near him on <strong>the</strong> ground with great care.<br />
While a general preference for l<strong>in</strong>early closer antecedents favours <strong>the</strong> local antecedent <strong>in</strong> both<br />
(3) and (4), b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g condition B rules <strong>the</strong> local antecedent out <strong>in</strong> sentences of type (3). All<br />
experimental and filler sentences were embedded with<strong>in</strong> short neutral discourse contexts, and<br />
comprehension questions followed two thirds of <strong>the</strong> trials. Participants’ eye movements were<br />
recorded while <strong>the</strong>y were read<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> stimulus materials on a computer screen.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> condition B type sentences (Experiment 1), <strong>the</strong> ‘non-local mismatch’ condition<br />
(3c) yielded significantly longer reread<strong>in</strong>g and total view<strong>in</strong>g times <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> pronoun and<br />
spillover region compared to <strong>the</strong> ‘local mismatch’ condition (3b). The ‘non-local mismatch’<br />
condition (3c) also yielded significantly <strong>in</strong>creased regression-path times <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al region<br />
compared to <strong>the</strong> ‘local mismatch’ condition (3b). This <strong>in</strong>dicates that participants experienced<br />
late but significant difficulty when <strong>the</strong> non-local antecedent mismatched <strong>the</strong> pronoun <strong>in</strong><br />
gender. Additionally, <strong>the</strong>re was a trend for <strong>the</strong> ‘double match’ condition (3a) to have<br />
<strong>in</strong>creased reread<strong>in</strong>g and total view<strong>in</strong>g times compared to <strong>the</strong> ‘local mismatch’ condition (3b),<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g potential <strong>in</strong>terference from a gender-match<strong>in</strong>g local antecedent. For SDP sentences<br />
(Experiment 2) a different pattern was observed. Here <strong>the</strong> ‘local mismatch’ condition (4b)<br />
elicited <strong>the</strong> longest reread<strong>in</strong>g times <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> pref<strong>in</strong>al and f<strong>in</strong>al regions, <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that<br />
participants experienced process<strong>in</strong>g difficulty later dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> sentence when <strong>the</strong> local<br />
antecedent mismatched <strong>in</strong> gender.<br />
Taken toge<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>se results suggest that when a pronoun is first encountered <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
not an immediate default to ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> local (Cunn<strong>in</strong>gs et al., 2011) or <strong>the</strong> first-mentioned<br />
(Arnold et al., 2000) antecedent. Nor is <strong>the</strong>re an automatic application of condition B at an<br />
early ‘bond<strong>in</strong>g’ stage. Instead, candidate antecedents are evaluated fully at a later ‘resolution’<br />
stage, which <strong>in</strong>cludes consideration of <strong>the</strong> syntactic configuration and <strong>the</strong> application of<br />
condition B. For pronouns which are exempt from condition B (Experiment 2), a preference<br />
for <strong>the</strong> local antecedent is observed.<br />
References<br />
Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S, and Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The<br />
immediate use of gender <strong>in</strong>formation: Eyetrack<strong>in</strong>g evidence of <strong>the</strong> time-course of pronoun<br />
resolution. Cognition 76, B13-B26.<br />
Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The process<strong>in</strong>g role of structural constra<strong>in</strong>ts on <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation of pronouns and anaphors. J Exp Psychol Learn 28, 748-769.<br />
Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky, N. (1981). Lectures <strong>in</strong> Government and B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g. Dordrecht: Foris.<br />
Cunn<strong>in</strong>gs, I., Patterson, C., & Felser, C. (2011). “Variable b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g and coreference <strong>in</strong><br />
sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements”. AMLaP 17, Paris.<br />
Hestvik, A. (1991). Subjectless b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g doma<strong>in</strong>s. Nat Lang L<strong>in</strong>guist Th 9, 455-496.<br />
Nicol, J., & Sw<strong>in</strong>ney, D. (1989). The role of structure <strong>in</strong> coreference assignment dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
sentence comprehension. J Psychol<strong>in</strong>guist Res 18, 5-20.<br />
Seker<strong>in</strong>a, I., Stro<strong>ms</strong>wold, K., & Hestvik, A. (2004). How do adults and children process<br />
referentially ambiguous pronouns? J Child Lang 31, 123-152.<br />
Tenny, C. (2004). “Pronoun b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>the</strong> grammar of sentience”. Workshop on Semantic<br />
Approaches to B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g Theory, ESSLLI 16, Université Henri Po<strong>in</strong>caré, Nancy.
Uli Sauerland (ZAS) & Jonathan Bobaljik (UConn)<br />
Syncretism Distribution Model<strong>in</strong>g and Person Paradig<strong>ms</strong><br />
<strong>Generative</strong> analyses of paradigm morphology relate two layers: <strong>the</strong> morpheme layer and <strong>the</strong> underly<strong>in</strong>g<br />
feature layer. <strong>Generative</strong> rules relate <strong>the</strong> two layers – for <strong>in</strong>stance, <strong>in</strong>sertion rules <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case<br />
of distributed morphology, which we adopt for concreteness <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g. Such a generative<br />
analysis is restricted by two factors: a) <strong>the</strong> set of features, and b) <strong>the</strong> type of rule-order<strong>in</strong>g it allows.<br />
We dist<strong>in</strong>guish between extr<strong>in</strong>sic, weak <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic and strong <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic rule order<strong>in</strong>g. Consider <strong>the</strong><br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g illustration: If <strong>the</strong>re are two <strong>in</strong>dependent features F1 and F2, <strong>the</strong>re are <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
three possible rules:<br />
A: [F1 & F2] ↦→ /a/, B: [F1] ↦→ /b/, C: [F2] ↦→ /c/<br />
Rules can be ordered <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sically by <strong>the</strong>ir specificity: e.g. rule A must be ordered first <strong>in</strong> any<br />
language that uses it because if it was ordered after any of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r rules, it wouldn’t have any<br />
effect. Rule B and C, however, don’t stand <strong>in</strong> any <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic order. The three order pr<strong>in</strong>ciples are<br />
dist<strong>in</strong>guished <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir treatment of <strong>the</strong>se two. Extr<strong>in</strong>sic order allows languages to specify <strong>the</strong> order<br />
of B and C, a weak <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic order allows languages to use rule B and C, but only if <strong>the</strong> language<br />
also uses rule A – <strong>in</strong> that context, <strong>the</strong> order of rules B and C is actually irrelevant. A strong <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic<br />
order never allows languages to make use of more than one of B and C.<br />
The feature set and constra<strong>in</strong>ts on rule order predict which paradig<strong>ms</strong> can be generated. However,<br />
paradigm morphology differs from o<strong>the</strong>r doma<strong>in</strong>s of generative l<strong>in</strong>guistics <strong>in</strong> that paradig<strong>ms</strong> that<br />
cannot be generated <strong>in</strong> a systematic fashion, can still be generated via accidental homophony. For<br />
example, consider <strong>the</strong> paradigm [+F1, +F2] ↔ /b/, [+F1, -F2] ↔ /b/, [-F1, +F2] ↔ /c/. If extr<strong>in</strong>sic<br />
rule order is possible, <strong>the</strong> rules B followed by C generate <strong>the</strong> paradigm. But, if only weak <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic<br />
orders are possible, <strong>the</strong> paradigm can still be generated: Namely, it requires all three rules A, B,<br />
and C and <strong>the</strong> assumption that morphemes /a/ and /b/ are accidentally homophonous.<br />
How do we f<strong>in</strong>d out which feature set and which rule order<strong>in</strong>g type are correct? Traditionally<br />
morphologist follow are rule of thumb, that Halle & Marantz (2008) state as follows: avoid accidental<br />
homophony and maximize generalizations. Despite its usefulness, <strong>the</strong> rule of thumb has<br />
no pr<strong>in</strong>cipled justification. In this talk, we <strong>in</strong>stead focus on <strong>the</strong> accidental, i.e. random, nature of<br />
accidental homophony: We view accidental homophony like random noise and it must <strong>the</strong>refore<br />
be randomly distributed. For a concrete generative analysis, we compute for a large amount of<br />
morphological data from several languages which syncretis<strong>ms</strong> can be systematic and which must<br />
be accidental. We <strong>the</strong>n test how ‘random’ <strong>the</strong> distribution of <strong>the</strong> accidental syncretism is us<strong>in</strong>g an<br />
exact, non-parametric statistical test. The method is an <strong>in</strong>stance of maximum likelihood model<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
The best morphological analysis is one where <strong>the</strong> actual distribution of accidental is highly likely<br />
to have arisen from random noise.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> talk, we present two results: 1) A general statistical framework for <strong>the</strong> analysis of typological<br />
paradigm frequencies. 2) An application of <strong>the</strong> framework to Cysouw’s (2003, OUP) data on<br />
person mark<strong>in</strong>g to argue that extr<strong>in</strong>sic rule order is necessary. In this abstract, we focus on a<br />
exemplary subcase – <strong>the</strong> case of first person morphology. For this case, we tested all possible<br />
generative analyses, and f<strong>in</strong>d that surpris<strong>in</strong>gly two can account for <strong>the</strong> data.<br />
The First Person Case: Now consider real data: <strong>the</strong> four cells of first person (first exclusive<br />
m<strong>in</strong>imal = 1, first <strong>in</strong>clusive m<strong>in</strong>imal = 1+2, first exclusive augmented = 1+3, and first <strong>in</strong>clusive
0 5 10 15<br />
augmented = 1+2+3). In this case, <strong>the</strong>re are 15 possible paradig<strong>ms</strong> and also 15 possible features.<br />
The m<strong>in</strong>imal number of universal features sufficient to allow an analysis of all 15 paradigm is 3.<br />
Our computational analysis shows that <strong>the</strong>re are 47 dist<strong>in</strong>ct generative analyses with 3 universal<br />
features (out of over 16000 total possible analyses).<br />
We <strong>the</strong>n tested whe<strong>the</strong>r any of <strong>the</strong> generative analyses predicts <strong>the</strong> actual distribution of languages<br />
across <strong>the</strong> 15 possible paradig<strong>ms</strong>. To limit <strong>the</strong> effect of large language families, we counted maximally<br />
15 languages per paradigm follow<strong>in</strong>g Cysouw (Post hoc, we confirmed our results to be<br />
<strong>in</strong>dependent of this assumption.) Contra Cysouw’s claim, we found that <strong>the</strong>re are generative analyses<br />
that predict <strong>the</strong> actual distribution to be highly likely. Contra generative expectations, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
are actually two generative models yield likelihood greater 80% for <strong>the</strong> actual distribution (all o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
models yield <strong>in</strong> likelihood smaller 0.1%): Model A and Model B illustrated below. On <strong>the</strong> x-axis,<br />
<strong>the</strong> two graphs show <strong>the</strong> 15 possible paradig<strong>ms</strong>, and on <strong>the</strong> y-axis <strong>the</strong> number of language (grey =<br />
actual, white = most likely expected). The top right corner shows <strong>the</strong> 3 basic features (bold frame)<br />
and possible derived features, <strong>the</strong> rate of accidental homophony, and <strong>the</strong> likelihood predicted for<br />
<strong>the</strong> actual distribution. Model A uses three semantically def<strong>in</strong>able, features 1, -2 and m<strong>in</strong>imal, and<br />
assumes a rate of accidental homophony of 5.8%. Model B uses also uses <strong>the</strong> features 1 and -2,<br />
but <strong>in</strong> addition <strong>the</strong> semantically unexpected feature [[1,-2,m<strong>in</strong>imal] or [1,2,augmented]], while <strong>the</strong><br />
accidental homophony rate is 10.3%. For <strong>the</strong> paradig<strong>ms</strong>, a bold frame <strong>in</strong>dicates that <strong>the</strong> paradigm<br />
can be generated without accidental homophony and <strong>the</strong> t<strong>in</strong>y numbers below <strong>in</strong>dicate <strong>the</strong> optimal<br />
underly<strong>in</strong>g distribution of languages.<br />
21.6 16.4 14.5 14.4 13 2.2 0.8<br />
aHomph rate: 5.8 %<br />
p > 9.9 * 10^ -1<br />
actual # of languages<br />
predicted # of languages<br />
0 5 10 15<br />
aHomph rate: 10.3 %<br />
p > 8.5 * 10^ -1<br />
actual # of languages<br />
predicted # of languages<br />
27.6 16.3 13.8 13.7 11.6 0 0<br />
Model A Model B<br />
Conclusion: In sum, we argue that generative morphology must use statistical models to get<br />
around <strong>the</strong> problem of accidental homophony and propose such a model, syncretism distribution<br />
model<strong>in</strong>g. Us<strong>in</strong>g this approach, we show that <strong>the</strong> morphological data from person paradig<strong>ms</strong><br />
support generative models, but require extr<strong>in</strong>sic rule order.<br />
References: Cysouw, M., 2003. The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Mark<strong>in</strong>g. Oxford University<br />
Press.
Patrick Sturt (University of Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh)<br />
The tim<strong>in</strong>g of dependency formation: State of <strong>the</strong> art and future challenges<br />
In <strong>the</strong> last two decades, on-l<strong>in</strong>e experimental techniques have yielded a wealth of evidence about<br />
<strong>the</strong> tim<strong>in</strong>g of dependency formation. But what does this evidence tell us about <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g<br />
strategies and overall architecture of <strong>the</strong> language comprehension system? In this talk, I will attempt<br />
to build up a picture of <strong>the</strong> sentence comprehension system from <strong>the</strong> available evidence, focus<strong>in</strong>g<br />
on recent work conducted at Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh and elsewhere, cover<strong>in</strong>g a range of dependency types<br />
<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g control dependencies, reflexive b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g (<strong>in</strong> picture noun and co-argument contexts),<br />
subject-verb agreement. I will review <strong>the</strong> evidence with <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g questions <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d: Is <strong>the</strong>re a<br />
systematic explanation for <strong>the</strong> variability <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> tim<strong>in</strong>g and violability of grammatical constra<strong>in</strong>ts<br />
under different conditions? What is <strong>the</strong> relation between on-l<strong>in</strong>e structure-build<strong>in</strong>g and f<strong>in</strong>al<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation? What k<strong>in</strong>d of memory access might be <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> dependency formation? What is<br />
<strong>the</strong> relation between <strong>the</strong> use of top-down and bottom-up structural <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> pars<strong>in</strong>g? The talk<br />
will end with an outl<strong>in</strong>e of challenges for future research, and some suggestions on how we might<br />
tackle <strong>the</strong>m.
Yanyan Sui (NYU)<br />
Metrical Structural Prom<strong>in</strong>ence Versus Perceived Prom<strong>in</strong>ence <strong>in</strong> Standard Ch<strong>in</strong>ese<br />
Proposal: This study dist<strong>in</strong>guishes stress as metrical structural prom<strong>in</strong>ence from perceived<br />
prom<strong>in</strong>ence <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> metrical stress analysis of Standard Ch<strong>in</strong>ese, a tone language whose<br />
syllables have fixed underly<strong>in</strong>g tones. It clai<strong>ms</strong> that perceived prom<strong>in</strong>ence may diverge from<br />
metrical structural prom<strong>in</strong>ence under <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluence of duration and tones. The <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic<br />
prom<strong>in</strong>ence of particular tones <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second syllable of a disyllabic word, as well as longer<br />
duration as a boundary leng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g effect may lead to iambic prom<strong>in</strong>ence judgment, whereas<br />
consistent F0 and durational patterns <strong>in</strong> addition to <strong>the</strong> distribution of neutral tones and<br />
segmental reduction suggest <strong>the</strong> basic foot structure is trochaic.<br />
Background: The stress pattern of disyllabic words whose second syllables are toneless,<br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r underly<strong>in</strong>gly or as a result of tone deletion, is agreed to be Strong-Weak. What rema<strong>in</strong>s<br />
controversial, both <strong>in</strong> native speakers‟ judgment and <strong>in</strong> previous phonological analyses, is <strong>the</strong><br />
stress pattern of words that do not conta<strong>in</strong> toneless syllables, which is claimed to be (1)<br />
iambic (Chao 1968, Xu 1982), (2) ei<strong>the</strong>r iambic or trochaic depend<strong>in</strong>g on lexical specification<br />
(Hoa 1983), or (3) trochaic (Duanmu 2000), but (4) becomes iambic <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> surface by stress<br />
shift (Chang 1992) or by employment of a special type of foot (Duanmu 2007), or ra<strong>the</strong>r, (5)<br />
<strong>the</strong> stress pattern is determ<strong>in</strong>ed by tonal prom<strong>in</strong>ence (Meredith 1990). This paper argues that<br />
it is <strong>in</strong>correct to treat perceived prom<strong>in</strong>ence directly as metrical structural prom<strong>in</strong>ence.<br />
Prom<strong>in</strong>ence judgment is subject to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluence of duration and tones, among many o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
factors <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> prom<strong>in</strong>ence perception.<br />
Perceived prom<strong>in</strong>ence ≠ metrical structural prom<strong>in</strong>ence: Perceived prom<strong>in</strong>ence may not<br />
be <strong>the</strong> faithful reflection of metrical structural prom<strong>in</strong>ence due to durational and tonal effects<br />
<strong>in</strong> prom<strong>in</strong>ence judgment. First, durational difference between syllables <strong>in</strong> a word <strong>in</strong>duces<br />
judgment of syllables with longer duration as more salient. In a corpus study of 2239<br />
disyllabic words <strong>in</strong> connected speech by Deng (2010), it is found that before no pause, <strong>the</strong><br />
first syllable is longer than <strong>the</strong> second syllable, but before little pause, <strong>the</strong> second syllable is<br />
longer, and <strong>the</strong> durational difference grows substantially before an obvious pause and <strong>in</strong><br />
utterance f<strong>in</strong>al position. Patterns <strong>in</strong> prom<strong>in</strong>ence judgment closely correlate with <strong>the</strong> durational<br />
differences. Before no pause and little pause, 64% and 52% of words respectively are judged<br />
stronger <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first syllable, but before an obvious pause, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g utterance f<strong>in</strong>ally, only<br />
about 26% of words are judged stronger <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first syllable. And when grouped by tones,<br />
words that are judged stronger <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second syllable <strong>in</strong>variably have longer second syllables.<br />
Second, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic prom<strong>in</strong>ence of tones <strong>in</strong>terferes with prom<strong>in</strong>ence judgment. Previous<br />
studies have noted that syllables with High Fall<strong>in</strong>g tone tend to be judged as <strong>the</strong> most<br />
prom<strong>in</strong>ent, whereas syllables with Low tone are <strong>the</strong> least likely to be perceived prom<strong>in</strong>ent<br />
(Hoa 1983). This observation is confirmed by <strong>the</strong> perception experiment by Deng (2010) and<br />
by <strong>the</strong> present study on embedded made-up disyllabic words, which vary <strong>in</strong> tonal<br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ations, but are devoid of morphosyntactic and semantic <strong>in</strong>formation. The results show<br />
that <strong>in</strong> a disyllabic word if <strong>the</strong> second syllable bears High Fall<strong>in</strong>g tone, or if <strong>the</strong> first syllable<br />
bears Low tone, <strong>the</strong> word tends to be judged more salient <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second syllable (at about 65%<br />
and 59% chances respectively), and <strong>the</strong> likelihood reaches 89% if <strong>the</strong> first syllable bears Low<br />
tone and <strong>the</strong> second syllable bears High Fall<strong>in</strong>g tone. In contrast, a second syllable with Low<br />
tone is judged prom<strong>in</strong>ent only 21% of <strong>the</strong> time. The correlation of tones and prom<strong>in</strong>ence<br />
judgment is salient and consistent across various speech registers <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g read isolated
words, broadcast news, and conversational speech. Therefore, perceived prom<strong>in</strong>ence cannot<br />
be simply equated with metrical structural prom<strong>in</strong>ence. Representations of metrical structure<br />
may only be built on evidence <strong>in</strong>dependent of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic tonal prom<strong>in</strong>ence and durational<br />
effects due to boundary leng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Phonetic evidence for disyllabic trochee: (1) Strong-Weak F0 alternation: <strong>in</strong> a corpus study<br />
of prosody <strong>in</strong> broadcast news by Lai et al. (2010) which <strong>in</strong>cludes 56378 disyllabic tokens,<br />
4540 trisyllabic tokens and 727 quadrisyllabic tokens, a robust strong-weak F0 pattern is<br />
found <strong>in</strong> disyllabic words, and <strong>the</strong> strong-weak pattern repeats <strong>in</strong> quadrisyllabic words<br />
between <strong>the</strong> third and fourth syllables; Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, when grouped by tones, a tone is realized<br />
more closely to its tonal template <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first syllable than <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second syllable <strong>in</strong> disyllabic<br />
words; Strong-Weak alternation <strong>in</strong> metrical strength is also found <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>dependent study of<br />
<strong>in</strong>tonation model<strong>in</strong>g by Kochanski et al. (2003); (2) Durational patterns: duration is not an<br />
immediate acoustic cue to metrical strength, it also <strong>in</strong>dicates prosodic constituent boundaries.<br />
However, consistent durational patterns emerge <strong>in</strong> sentential medial position before no pause,<br />
<strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> first syllable is longer than <strong>the</strong> second syllable, and <strong>the</strong> third syllable longer than<br />
<strong>the</strong> second syllable <strong>in</strong> polysyllabic words (Wang & Wang 1993, Lai et al. 2010, Deng 2010).<br />
Phonological evidence for disyllabic trochee: (1) Distribution of neutral tone: underly<strong>in</strong>g<br />
toneless syllables may only occur <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second syllable of a disyllabic word, never <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first<br />
syllable, e.g., zhǔn tou „accuracy‟, jì de „remember‟; (2) Position of tone deletion: only <strong>the</strong><br />
tone of <strong>the</strong> second syllable may be deleted <strong>in</strong> disyllabic words, e.g., gōng jiā/ jia „<strong>the</strong> state‟, yì<br />
wù/ wu „obligation‟; (3) Position of segmental reduction: i) vowel reduction only occurs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
second syllable, e.g., mián huā, /x w ɑ/ → [x w ə] „cotton‟, chuāng hù, /xu/ → [x w ə] „w<strong>in</strong>dow‟; ii)<br />
vowel devoic<strong>in</strong>g only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second syllable, e.g., kuò qì /tɕ h i/ → [tɕ h i ] „lavish‟, sòng qǜ /tɕ h y/<br />
→ [tɕ h y ] „send‟. These phenomena are manifestations of weaker metrical strength <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
second syllable of disyllabic words, which support <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis of disyllabic trochee.<br />
Foot construction: Follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Generalized Trochee Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis (Hayes 1991) this study<br />
proposes that <strong>the</strong> metrical foot <strong>in</strong>ventory of Standard Ch<strong>in</strong>ese is Construct (σ σ), else (σµµ).<br />
When a disyllabic trochee cannot be formed, a bimoraic trochee is constructed, e.g., Ft(yǐ zi)<br />
„chair‟, Ft(xīn zàng) „heart‟, [Ft(qì chē) Ft(kù)] „garage‟. Stress <strong>in</strong>teracts with tone <strong>in</strong> ter<strong>ms</strong><br />
that stressed positions must bear tone, while unstressed position is subject to tone deletion.<br />
Conclusion: This study has shown that perceived prom<strong>in</strong>ence may diverge from metrical<br />
structural prom<strong>in</strong>ence under <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluence of tone and duration. It is <strong>in</strong>correct to identify<br />
metrical structural prom<strong>in</strong>ence with perceived prom<strong>in</strong>ence. Close exam<strong>in</strong>ation of F0 and<br />
durational patterns as well as <strong>the</strong> distribution of tone and segmental reduction suggests <strong>the</strong><br />
metrical structure is trochaic. The study contributes to <strong>the</strong> general discussion of how acoustic<br />
and perceptual evidence may shed light to phonological representations, and <strong>the</strong> discussion of<br />
tone and stress furnishes ano<strong>the</strong>r example of how tone <strong>in</strong>teracts with stress <strong>in</strong> a tone language.<br />
Selected References: Chang, Mei-Chih Laura. 1992. A prosodic account of tone, stress, and<br />
tone sandhi <strong>in</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese languages. Doctoral dissertation. University of Hawaii. Deng, Dan.<br />
2010. Hanyu Yunluci Yanjiu. [The study of prosodic words <strong>in</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese] Beij<strong>in</strong>g: Beij<strong>in</strong>g<br />
University. Duanmu, San. 2000. 2007. The Phonology of Standard Ch<strong>in</strong>ese. Oxford: Oxford<br />
University Press. Lai, C., Sui, Y. and Yuan, J. 2010. “A corpus study of <strong>the</strong> prosody of<br />
polysyllabic words <strong>in</strong> Mandar<strong>in</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese,” Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of Speech Prosody 2010, 100457:1-4.<br />
Meredith, Scott. 1990. Issues <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> phonology of prom<strong>in</strong>ence. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.
Megan Sutton, Michael Fetters & Jeffrey Lidz (Maryland)<br />
Pars<strong>in</strong>g for Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C at 30-months<br />
In study<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> acquisition of any constra<strong>in</strong>t, it is important to recognize <strong>the</strong> contribution of<br />
both children’s grammatical representations and <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g mechanis<strong>ms</strong> required to deploy<br />
<strong>the</strong>se representations. In order to correctly understand sentences like (1), exhibit<strong>in</strong>g Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C,<br />
children must m<strong>in</strong>imally (a) access lexical <strong>in</strong>formation, (b) build <strong>the</strong> phrase structure and (c)<br />
<strong>in</strong>tegrate <strong>the</strong>se with Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C to constra<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
(1) She’s patt<strong>in</strong>g Katie!<br />
Importantly, even adult-like behavior <strong>in</strong> Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C contexts does not directly reflect adultlike<br />
knowledge: <strong>the</strong>re are a number of non-adultlike strategies children could rely on to yield <strong>the</strong><br />
same behavior. However, <strong>the</strong>se non-adultlike strategies are <strong>in</strong>dependent of structure; only adultlike,<br />
structure-dependent grammatical knowledge of Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C predicts that performance on a<br />
Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C task would be dependent on variation <strong>in</strong> speed of structure-build<strong>in</strong>g. Build<strong>in</strong>g on<br />
previous research show<strong>in</strong>g that early understand<strong>in</strong>g of sentences like (1) is affected by<br />
vocabulary size but not efficiency of lexical access ([1]), we explored <strong>the</strong> effects of Vocabulary,<br />
Lexical Access Speed (LAS), and Phrase Structure Integration Speed (PSIS) on 30-month-olds’<br />
comprehension of Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C. We show that all 30-month-olds appropriately represent Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple<br />
C, as efficiency of pars<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C contexts is dependent on speed of structure-build<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
We tested 32 30-month-olds (28;3-31;25,M=30;1) on three preferential look<strong>in</strong>g tasks. In<br />
experiment 1 (Figure 1), test<strong>in</strong>g Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C, children saw 8 trials which simultaneously<br />
presented a reflexive and non-reflexive event with a non-reflexive sentence (1). We measured <strong>the</strong><br />
proportion look<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> non-reflexive video. Experiments 2 and 3 tested <strong>the</strong> same children to<br />
obta<strong>in</strong> measures LAS and PSIS, respectively. In experiment 2 children saw 8 trials featur<strong>in</strong>g 2<br />
familiar objects with an audio prompt to f<strong>in</strong>d one of <strong>the</strong> objects (2). In experiment 3, children<br />
saw 3 objects of <strong>the</strong> same k<strong>in</strong>d, <strong>the</strong> largest of which differed <strong>in</strong> color. In 12 control trials,<br />
children were prompted to f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> biggest object (3), and <strong>in</strong> 12 test trials <strong>the</strong>y were prompted to<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> biggest of <strong>the</strong> two same-color objects (4). Children were divided <strong>in</strong>to ‘fast’ and ‘slow’<br />
groups for LAS and each condition of PSIS by <strong>the</strong> median response latency on distractor-<strong>in</strong>itial<br />
trials [2]. We found no significant correlation between any of <strong>the</strong>se four measures (Vocabulary,<br />
LAS, PSIS:superlative, and PSIS:superlative+adjective; all p>.1), allow<strong>in</strong>g us to use <strong>the</strong>se<br />
measures and <strong>the</strong>ir median-split groups as <strong>in</strong>dependent covariates <strong>in</strong> analyz<strong>in</strong>g Experiment 1.<br />
(2) Where’s <strong>the</strong> fish?<br />
(3) Where’s <strong>the</strong> biggest tra<strong>in</strong>?<br />
(4) Where’s <strong>the</strong> biggest red tra<strong>in</strong>?<br />
We analyzed distractor-<strong>in</strong>itial trials (where <strong>the</strong> child was look<strong>in</strong>g at <strong>the</strong> reflexive event at<br />
<strong>the</strong> onset of <strong>the</strong> word Katie <strong>in</strong> (1)) across <strong>the</strong> 300-3000<strong>ms</strong> post-onset w<strong>in</strong>dow. Both median split<br />
groups for all four covariate measures reach significantly above chance (all p
[1] Sutton, M., Lukyanenko, C. &<br />
Lidz, J. (2011). The Onset of<br />
Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple C at 30 Months: <strong>the</strong> role<br />
of vocabulary, syntactic<br />
development, and process<strong>in</strong>g<br />
efficiency. Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of BUCLD<br />
35. Cascadilla Press: Cambridge.<br />
[2] Sw<strong>in</strong>gley, D., P<strong>in</strong>to, J., & Fernald,<br />
A. (1999). Cont<strong>in</strong>uous process<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong> word recognition at 24 months.<br />
Cognition, 71, 73-108.!<br />
!
North Sámi Pronouns<br />
Peter Svenonius (Tro<strong>ms</strong>ø/CASTL)<br />
This paper uses a detailed analysis of North Sámi data to clarify some important<br />
issues <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> analysis of pronouns crossl<strong>in</strong>guistically. A central phenomenon analyzed<br />
is shifted <strong>in</strong>dexicals, which are different <strong>in</strong> North Sámi from o<strong>the</strong>r languages previously<br />
described. The account provides support to those analyses which posit an operator <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
left periphery supply<strong>in</strong>g personal pronouns with <strong>the</strong>ir referents (e.g. Bianchi 2003 <strong>in</strong>ter<br />
alia), but at <strong>the</strong> same time it provides evidence for locat<strong>in</strong>g certa<strong>in</strong> semantic features <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> pronouns <strong>the</strong><strong>ms</strong>elves (as <strong>in</strong> Schlenker 2003). Thus it reconciles what have been cast<br />
as alternatives <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> literature. In addition, <strong>the</strong> analysis of <strong>the</strong> pronouns <strong>the</strong><strong>ms</strong>elves<br />
supports a more f<strong>in</strong>e-gra<strong>in</strong>ed approach to pronom<strong>in</strong>al semantics than is usually assumed.<br />
The k<strong>in</strong>d of shifted <strong>in</strong>dexicals which are central to <strong>the</strong> analysis are illustrated <strong>in</strong> (1),<br />
where <strong>the</strong> embedded clauses conta<strong>in</strong> shifted (i.e. non<strong>in</strong>dexical) second-person pronouns<br />
(and agreement, <strong>in</strong> (1b)), as well as unshifted third person (‘logophoric’) bound pronouns.<br />
(1) a. INgá lohkai: Ii son váldde<br />
du.<br />
Inga said not.3sg s/helog have.pres.conneg you.sg.acc<br />
‘Ingai said shei wouldn’t have “you” [<strong>in</strong> marriage]’<br />
b. De bohtet cizáˇzat ja lohket: Ehpet<br />
<strong>the</strong>n came.past.3pl sparrow.pl.nom and said.past.3pl not.2pl<br />
dii nagot<br />
váldit dan, muhto sii<br />
you.pl.nom manage.pres.conneg take.<strong>in</strong>f it but <strong>the</strong>ylog<br />
nagodit, sii leat nu ollugat.<br />
manage.pres.3pl <strong>the</strong>y are.pres.3pl so many<br />
‘Then sparrowsi came and said “you” can’t carry it, but <strong>the</strong>yi can, <strong>the</strong>yi are<br />
so numerous’<br />
Splitt<strong>in</strong>g and Lump<strong>in</strong>g. Semantic analyses of pronouns posit various k<strong>in</strong>ds of dist<strong>in</strong>ctions<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ways that <strong>the</strong>y pick up <strong>the</strong>ir reference. For example, it is often assumed that<br />
bound anaphoric and freely referr<strong>in</strong>g pronouns are underly<strong>in</strong>gly dist<strong>in</strong>ct, even when <strong>the</strong>y<br />
are <strong>the</strong> same on <strong>the</strong> surface (e.g. Cho<strong>ms</strong>ky’s 1955:525 he and he*).<br />
At <strong>the</strong> same time, <strong>the</strong>re is a trend <strong>in</strong> many semantic analyses toward unification of<br />
different k<strong>in</strong>ds of pronouns, e.g. different bound elements such as bound pronouns, fake<br />
reflexives, anaphors, PRO, etc. (Kratzer 2008, where <strong>the</strong> real semantic action takes place<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> verbal heads, and <strong>the</strong> spell-out of pronouns is mostly just morphology, or Elbourne<br />
2008 <strong>in</strong>ter alia, where various k<strong>in</strong>ds of b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g are unified with donkey anaphora under<br />
a D-type analysis).<br />
Fake <strong>in</strong>dexicals (as <strong>in</strong> Heim’s Only I did my homework) appear to show both that<br />
one morphological form can pick up reference <strong>in</strong> different ways, and that bound pronouns<br />
can surface with more than one morphological form.<br />
This state of affairs might be taken to suggest that semantics is autonomous from<br />
morphosyntax, and that <strong>the</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ctions made <strong>in</strong> one system simply fail to match <strong>the</strong><br />
dist<strong>in</strong>ctions made <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. However, such a conclusion would be premature. Ra<strong>the</strong>r,<br />
I suggest, pronom<strong>in</strong>al elements are complex underly<strong>in</strong>gly. Bound pronom<strong>in</strong>al elements<br />
share some feature patterns with one ano<strong>the</strong>r, which is why <strong>the</strong>y can behave similarly.<br />
The surface exponents which spell out pronom<strong>in</strong>al syntactic structures are underspecified,<br />
which allows <strong>the</strong>m to match a range of different underly<strong>in</strong>g structures, which is why one<br />
surface pronoun can behave <strong>in</strong> several different ways.<br />
Crossl<strong>in</strong>guistic evidence and Shifted <strong>in</strong>dexicals. In order to see this, it is necessary<br />
1
to consider cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistic evidence. There are many languages <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong>re are multiple<br />
series of pronouns, overtly reflect<strong>in</strong>g dist<strong>in</strong>ctions which o<strong>the</strong>r languages syncretize<br />
systematically at <strong>the</strong> surface. The logophors of Ewe (Clements 1975) or <strong>the</strong> obviative<br />
markers <strong>in</strong> Algonquian languages (Goddard 1984) are examples. However, detailed<br />
descriptions of <strong>the</strong>se understudied languages are usually not semantically current, and<br />
cutt<strong>in</strong>g-edge semantics does not have access to <strong>the</strong> details of <strong>the</strong>se languages necessary<br />
for choos<strong>in</strong>g among hypo<strong>the</strong>ses.<br />
An exception is Anand & Nev<strong>in</strong>s’ (2004) <strong>in</strong>vestigation of shifted <strong>in</strong>dexicals <strong>in</strong> Zazaki.<br />
Observ<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>in</strong>dexicals shift toge<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>y argue aga<strong>in</strong>st Schlenker’s (2003) and von<br />
Stechow’s (2002) lexical approaches. Instead, <strong>the</strong>y posit an operator at <strong>the</strong> periphery<br />
of <strong>the</strong> embedded clause which shifts <strong>the</strong> context for <strong>the</strong> entire clause. In support of<br />
this, observe that <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> North Sámi examples presented above, <strong>the</strong>re is no overt b<strong>in</strong>der<br />
referr<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> addressee for <strong>the</strong> shifted pronouns. Instead, <strong>the</strong> only bound pronouns<br />
are third person. I argue that <strong>the</strong> operator <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> left periphery can b<strong>in</strong>d as well as shift<br />
context (mak<strong>in</strong>g it more like <strong>the</strong> operators posited by Baker, Biachi, or SigurDsson).<br />
However, <strong>the</strong>re is also evidence from North Sámi that some critical features are located<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> pronoun itself. North Sámi makes a four-way dist<strong>in</strong>ction <strong>in</strong> ‘def<strong>in</strong>ite’ pronom<strong>in</strong>al<br />
elements (sett<strong>in</strong>g aside deictics, <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ites, <strong>in</strong>terrogatives, and o<strong>the</strong>rs). First, it dist<strong>in</strong>guishes<br />
locally bound anaphoric arguments and adjuncts (ieˇs, with various case for<strong>ms</strong>)<br />
both from lexical reflexives (with -d-) and from o<strong>the</strong>r pronom<strong>in</strong>al elements. Second,<br />
it uses pro-drop to dist<strong>in</strong>guish two levels of what Gundel (1999, 2003) calls referential<br />
givenness. F<strong>in</strong>ally, it has two series of overt pronouns (dat, with various case for<strong>ms</strong>, and<br />
son, with various case for<strong>ms</strong>) to dist<strong>in</strong>guish two levels of relational givenness. These are<br />
illustrated <strong>in</strong> (2).<br />
(2) a. Máhtte muitalii, ahte das lea goahti.<br />
Matte.nom told that pn.loc is hut.nom<br />
‘Matte expla<strong>in</strong>ed that he (some else) had a hut’<br />
b. Máhtte muitalii, ahte sus lea goahti.<br />
Matte.nom told that log.loc is hut.nom<br />
‘Matte expla<strong>in</strong>ed that he (Matte) had a hut’<br />
For convenience, <strong>the</strong>se can be referred to as <strong>the</strong> deictic and logophoric pronouns, respectively,<br />
though I will show how <strong>the</strong> first is not strictly deictic and <strong>the</strong> second is different<br />
from <strong>the</strong> logophoric pronouns described <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> previous literature. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>se two<br />
pronoun series dist<strong>in</strong>guish b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g from non-b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> someth<strong>in</strong>g like <strong>the</strong> way discussed<br />
above. The dist<strong>in</strong>ction, I suggest, is made <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r languages but systematically syncretized<br />
<strong>the</strong>re.<br />
I show that second person (but not first person) pronouns <strong>in</strong> examples like (1) can<br />
pattern with <strong>the</strong> ‘logophoric’ son-series. This requires a four-way dist<strong>in</strong>ction <strong>in</strong> features,<br />
where most analyses posit at most a two-way dist<strong>in</strong>ction: There are strictly <strong>in</strong>dexical<br />
elements (first person), underspecified elements which can be <strong>in</strong>dexical or shifted/bound<br />
(second person), obligatory bound elements (third person ‘logophoric’ series), and obligatorily<br />
unbound non<strong>in</strong>dexicals (<strong>the</strong> ‘deictic’ third person series).<br />
2
Kriszta Szendrői (UCL)<br />
Quantifier Rais<strong>in</strong>g is blocked by passives<br />
1. Quantifier Rais<strong>in</strong>g (QR) is a covert syntactic movement operation, <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> sentences with<br />
an <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite subject and a universal object:<br />
(1) A dog chased every cat. distributive read<strong>in</strong>g LF: [[every cat] i [a dog chased t i]]<br />
In psychol<strong>in</strong>guistic experiments, <strong>in</strong>verse scope is often found to be hard for native speakers to<br />
access (Ioup 1975, Van Lehn 1978, Catl<strong>in</strong> & Micham 1975; especially Kurtzmann & MacDonald<br />
1993, Tunstall 1998 and Anderson 2004). In this paper, I show that one of <strong>the</strong> reasons why <strong>the</strong><br />
distributive read<strong>in</strong>g is hard to access is <strong>the</strong> existence of an alternative derivation with (sufficiently)<br />
identical <strong>in</strong>terpretation,― <strong>the</strong> passive variant of (1):<br />
(2) Every cat was chased by a dog. distributive read<strong>in</strong>g LF: [[every cat] i [was chased e i by a dog]]<br />
2. Theoretical background: If this turns out to be correct, it has important <strong>the</strong>oretical<br />
implications. Most <strong>the</strong>oreticians agree that QR is restricted by <strong>in</strong>terface considerations: Fox (1995,<br />
2000), Re<strong>in</strong>hart (2006) and Bobaljik & Wurmbrand (2011), henceforth B&W. But <strong>the</strong>y disagree<br />
about <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terface mechanis<strong>ms</strong> at play. Fox (2000:26) argued that <strong>the</strong> restriction<br />
applies locally <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> syntactic derivation, prevent<strong>in</strong>g scope-shift<strong>in</strong>g operations unless <strong>the</strong>y have an<br />
effect. So, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of QR, <strong>the</strong> movement step is disallowed if it does not lead to a change <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation. Re<strong>in</strong>hart (2006:28) claimed that a global comparison of compet<strong>in</strong>g derivations is<br />
necessary, her ‘reference set’ computation: ‘<strong>the</strong> reference set consists of pairs of derivation<br />
and <strong>in</strong>terpretation, where <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation i is identical <strong>in</strong> all pairs.’ 1 So, QR is allowed if <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />
alternative derivation without QR with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> reference set that has <strong>the</strong> same (i.e. distributive)<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation. The crucial question, which Re<strong>in</strong>hart rema<strong>in</strong>ed implicit about, is what determ<strong>in</strong>es<br />
membership <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> reference set. As B&W:31, cit<strong>in</strong>g Fox (2000), correctly note, if membership is<br />
restricted to derivations with a shared numeration, <strong>the</strong> global computation can be easily reduced to a<br />
local one. With respect to <strong>the</strong> relevance of examples like (1)-(2) for QR, B&W take an explicit stand:<br />
‘[…] we assume that economy conditions only evaluate compet<strong>in</strong>g derivations from <strong>the</strong> same<br />
numeration (<strong>in</strong>put), and thus that correspond<strong>in</strong>g active and passive sentences will simply not<br />
compete with one ano<strong>the</strong>r.’ (B&W:7)<br />
3. Proposal: So, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> spirit of Re<strong>in</strong>hart’s approach and <strong>in</strong> contrast to B&W’s position, I propose<br />
that membership <strong>in</strong> a particular reference set is restricted by semantic identity <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sense of truthconditional<br />
equivalence. In <strong>the</strong> specific case of active-passive pairs, like (1) and (2), truth-conditional<br />
equivalence is trivially true, except for marg<strong>in</strong>al cases such as utterances <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g NPs that fail to<br />
refer (such as <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g of France), as <strong>the</strong>se may lead to truth-value gaps, while <strong>the</strong>ir passive variant may<br />
not. (We also need to put generic sentences of <strong>the</strong> type Beavers build da<strong>ms</strong> to one side.) My hypo<strong>the</strong>sis<br />
makes <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g testable prediction. If passive variants of active sentences <strong>in</strong>deed block <strong>the</strong><br />
distributive <strong>in</strong>terpretation of <strong>the</strong> active variant by QR, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>in</strong>verse scope (by QR) should be more<br />
easily accessible <strong>in</strong> sentences that <strong>in</strong>volve verbs that resist passivisation. This is because <strong>in</strong> such<br />
cases, no passive competitor can be present <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> reference set, as such a passive competitor does<br />
not exist, and thus, <strong>the</strong> derivation with QR could not be blocked by it. In contrast, if, as Fox<br />
suggested, decisions are taken locally, at <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> syntactic derivation when QR applies, <strong>the</strong>n<br />
<strong>the</strong> passive variant would simply not be considered as a viable alternative. The same applies to<br />
B&W’s proposal, who chose to base membership on shared numeration. Thus, both for Fox and<br />
B&W, it should be irrelevant for <strong>the</strong> availability of <strong>in</strong>verse scope whe<strong>the</strong>r a particular (active) sentence<br />
1 B&W’s (p33 l6-8) <strong>in</strong>terpretation of Re<strong>in</strong>hart’s proposal is <strong>the</strong> direct opposite: ‘Re<strong>in</strong>hart holds that <strong>the</strong><br />
calculation <strong>in</strong>volves <strong>the</strong> competition among <strong>the</strong> members of a ‘reference set’ consist<strong>in</strong>g of derivations (LF,PF<br />
pairs) with a common PF but different LFs.’ I have not managed to ascerta<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> source of this <strong>in</strong>terpretation.
<strong>in</strong>volves a passivis<strong>in</strong>g or non-passivis<strong>in</strong>g verb.<br />
It is important to clarify that, I do not necessarily expect that passive variants always block active<br />
variants with QR. (That would mean that <strong>the</strong> distributive read<strong>in</strong>g is never accessed if <strong>the</strong> verb has a<br />
passive alternant.) They only do so if <strong>the</strong>y are actually listed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> reference set at <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t when<br />
<strong>the</strong> hearer considers <strong>in</strong>verse scope. This is a performance issue, and should be determ<strong>in</strong>ed by an<br />
appropriate <strong>the</strong>ory of language use. While I cannot offer a specific proposal at this po<strong>in</strong>t, it see<strong>ms</strong><br />
clear to me that general discourse considerations such as topic-focus articulation (see Sæbø 1997),<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual differences between speakers (for <strong>in</strong>stance an aptitude to consider richer mean<strong>in</strong>gs e.g.<br />
metaphors, irony), and attention <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> psychological sense would be relevant factors. What matters<br />
here is that if any evidence is found that <strong>in</strong>verse scope is obta<strong>in</strong>ed more easily <strong>in</strong> sentences <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
verbs that are not passivisable, that would favour Re<strong>in</strong>hart’s global <strong>the</strong>ory over its competitors.<br />
4. Experiment: I determ<strong>in</strong>ed a set of 7 passivis<strong>in</strong>g-nonpassivis<strong>in</strong>g verb pairs by a grammaticality<br />
judgment pre-test. Then, 50 native speakers were presented with a forced-choice questionnaire<br />
(adapted from Anderson 2004) with sentences like (3)-(4). Their task was to circle <strong>the</strong> read<strong>in</strong>g that is<br />
closest to <strong>the</strong>ir mean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> sentence. The ‘same’-paraphrase corresponds to <strong>the</strong> overt scope<br />
read<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>the</strong> ‘different’-paraphrase corresponds to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>verse scope read<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
(3) Passivis<strong>in</strong>g condition: A road connects every village on <strong>the</strong> pen<strong>in</strong>sula.<br />
The same road connects <strong>the</strong> villages. Different roads connect <strong>the</strong> villages.<br />
(4) Non-passivis<strong>in</strong>g condition: A road leads to every village on <strong>the</strong> pen<strong>in</strong>sula.<br />
The same road leads to <strong>the</strong> villages. Different roads leads to <strong>the</strong> villages.<br />
All participants saw all ite<strong>ms</strong>, but <strong>in</strong> different orders. The ite<strong>ms</strong> were <strong>in</strong>terspersed with an equal<br />
number of fillers and controls, and pseudo-randomised. The paraphrases were presented <strong>in</strong> different<br />
orders, balanced across conditions. Crucially, each test item pair was identical except for <strong>the</strong> verbs.<br />
5. Results and discussion: Speakers obta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>verse scope read<strong>in</strong>g 25.4% of <strong>the</strong> time <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
non-passivis<strong>in</strong>g condition compared with 14.3% <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> passiviz<strong>in</strong>g verb condition: a statistically<br />
significant difference (participants t=3.963, df=40, two-tailed p
Barbara Tomaszewicz (USC)<br />
A family of exclusives <strong>in</strong> Polish<br />
Polish has four different focus associat<strong>in</strong>g adverbs that can be identified as exclusives, all of<br />
<strong>the</strong>m scalar, yet not always <strong>in</strong>terparaphrasable. Tylko, ledwie, dopiero and aż all evoke<br />
alternative propositions ordered on a scale and imply an exclusion of those alternatives that<br />
are higher or lower on <strong>the</strong> scale than <strong>the</strong> prejacent. What varies is (i) <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong><br />
exclusive implication (truth-conditional or pragmatic), (ii) <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> scale (likelihood<br />
vs. time vs. highly context-dependent pragmatic scales), (iii) <strong>the</strong> place of <strong>the</strong> prejacent on <strong>the</strong><br />
scale. Their common mean<strong>in</strong>g components, scalarity and exclusivity, <strong>in</strong>teract with (i-iii)<br />
thus creat<strong>in</strong>g a range of <strong>in</strong>terpretations that cannot be subsumed under <strong>the</strong> notions of<br />
unexpectedness and/or likelihood. The Polish <strong>in</strong>ventory raises a <strong>the</strong>oretically important<br />
question whe<strong>the</strong>r scalarity and exclusivity are generally l<strong>in</strong>ked to unexpectedness/likelihood<br />
or whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> dimension of <strong>the</strong> (default) scale should ra<strong>the</strong>r be lexically specified for each<br />
adverb, e.g. even as always <strong>in</strong>terpreted wrt. a scale of likelihood (Karttunen & Peters 1979)<br />
or its dual, noteworth<strong>in</strong>ess (Herburger 2000, Rullman 2007).<br />
(i) The exclusive component can be targeted by explicit denial, thus for all four exclusives<br />
it is an at-issue entailment (part of <strong>the</strong> assertion). Tylko/ledwie, like English only, can have<br />
quantificational (1b) or scalar (1c) read<strong>in</strong>gs and, and <strong>the</strong>ir prejacents project. The prejacent of<br />
dopiero and aż is at-issue (2-3), and aż cannot have a quantificational read<strong>in</strong>g (3b).<br />
(1) a. Maria widziała tylko/ledwie menadżera.<br />
Maria saw manager<br />
b. No, that’s false. – #She didn’t see <strong>the</strong> manager./She saw somebody else too.<br />
c. No, that’s false. – #She didn’t see <strong>the</strong> manager./She saw somebody more special.<br />
(2) a. Maria widziała dopiero menadżera.<br />
Maria saw manager<br />
b. No, that’s false. – She didn’t see <strong>the</strong> manager (yet)./She saw somebody else too.<br />
c. No, that’s false. – She didn’t see <strong>the</strong> manager (yet)./She saw somebody more special.<br />
(3) a. Maria widziała aż menadżera.<br />
Maria saw manager<br />
b. No, that’s false. – She didn’t see <strong>the</strong> manager./#She saw somebody else too.<br />
c. No, that’s false. – She didn’t see <strong>the</strong> manager./She saw somebody less special.<br />
The family of sentences tests (Chierchia & McConnell-G<strong>in</strong>et 1990) yield <strong>the</strong> same results.<br />
(ii) The quantificational read<strong>in</strong>gs of exclusives can be seen as a subtype of scalar read<strong>in</strong>gs:<br />
<strong>the</strong> relevant scale is a entailment scale (Kle<strong>in</strong>dienst 2005, Riester 2006); <strong>the</strong> rank<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
answers to <strong>the</strong> Question Under Discussion (Roberts 1996) is a boolean lattice (Beaver and<br />
Clark’s 2008). A scale not organized accord<strong>in</strong>g to logical entailment will have its dimension<br />
set by <strong>the</strong> context, e.g. importance <strong>in</strong> (1c, 2c, 3c), or temporal order<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> (2b,c) (c.f. German<br />
erst, König 1979, von Stechov 2006). Thus, scalarity does not automatically lead to a sense<br />
of unexpectedness/surprise. For (4) <strong>the</strong>re is no sense <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> speaker or <strong>the</strong> hearer would<br />
expect <strong>the</strong> team to do any better; each adverb contributes <strong>the</strong> read<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> 30 th place is<br />
very low (i.e. lower than a contextually set degree, but not necessarily unexpected).<br />
(4) Zespół był słaby i zajął tylko/ledwie/dopiero/aż 30 miejsce.<br />
team was poor and achieved 30 th place<br />
‘The team performed poorly and earned only 30 th place.’<br />
Scalarity with evaluativity but without likelihood is commonly found with gradable<br />
predicates that license <strong>the</strong> use of very (e.g. The baby's relatives are all more than 6ft tall. The<br />
baby is go<strong>in</strong>g to be very tall.). Evaluativity does not always relate to expectations.<br />
(iii) The place of <strong>the</strong> prejacent is low on <strong>the</strong> scale with tylko/ledwie/dopiero (cf. English<br />
only, Kl<strong>in</strong>edienst 2005, König 1991, von Rooy & Schultz 2005) and high with aż, which is<br />
shown by <strong>the</strong> contrast between (1c, 2c) and (3c). The alternatives excluded with aż are higher<br />
on <strong>the</strong> scale than <strong>the</strong> prejacent, thus aż is a scalar opposite of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs (cf. beyond-operators<br />
<strong>in</strong> Gast & van der Auwera 2011). The cont<strong>in</strong>uation <strong>in</strong> (5a) and (b) sounds like a
contradiction, while <strong>in</strong> (5c) <strong>the</strong> quantity implicature is more easily cancelled (with even<br />
plac<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> prejacent high on <strong>the</strong> scale of noteworth<strong>in</strong>ess.)<br />
(5) a. Marek potrafił zjeść aż 5 bananów, #a właściwie 6.<br />
Marek was.able to.eat 5 bananas and actually 6<br />
‘Marek was able to eat as many as 5 bananas, #<strong>in</strong> fact, he could eat 6’.<br />
b. Marek potrafił zjeść tylko/ledwie/dopiero 5 bananów. #a właściwie 6.<br />
Marek was.able to.eat 5 bananas and actually 6<br />
‘Marek was able to eat only 5 bananas, #<strong>in</strong> fact, he could eat 6’.<br />
c. Marek potrafił zjeść nawet 5 bananów, ?a właściwie 6.<br />
Marek was.able to.eat even 5 bananas and actually 6<br />
‘Marek was able to eat even 5 bananas, ?<strong>in</strong> fact, he could eat 6’.<br />
The reason (4) works is that <strong>the</strong> 30 th place is low on <strong>the</strong> “scale of success”, and at <strong>the</strong> same<br />
time high on <strong>the</strong> scale evoked by <strong>the</strong> numeral. (6) shows that <strong>the</strong> scale aż refers to is not<br />
coercible <strong>in</strong>to a scale of success.<br />
(6) Susan Boyle nie wygrała. Zajęła dopiero/#aż drugie miejsce.<br />
‘Susan Boyle did not w<strong>in</strong>. She only took second place.’<br />
If <strong>the</strong> dimension of <strong>the</strong> scale is underspecified <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> semantics of each adverb, we expect it<br />
to be easily manipulated by <strong>the</strong> context (<strong>the</strong> semantics of focused constituent <strong>the</strong> adverb<br />
associates with and <strong>the</strong> pragmatics). The four Polish exclusives, however, appear to be more<br />
contextually restricted. Tylko cannot always get a scalar read<strong>in</strong>g, e.g. <strong>in</strong> (7) it can only mean<br />
<strong>the</strong> Marek woke up once. Exclusively ledwie can receive approximate (8) and counterfactual<br />
(9) read<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />
(7) Martwi mnie, że Marek obudził się #tylko/ledwie/dopiero/aż o godz<strong>in</strong>ie 13.<br />
worries me that Marek woke self at hour 13<br />
‘I am disappo<strong>in</strong>ted that Marek woke up as late as at 13h.’<br />
(8) #Tylko/ledwie/#Dopiero/#Aż Marek otworzył drzwi, a zadzwonił telefon.<br />
Marek opened door and rang telephone<br />
‘Marek barely opened <strong>the</strong> door, when <strong>the</strong> telephone rang.’<br />
(9) Marek #tylko/ledwie/#dopiero/#aż otworzył drzwi.<br />
Marek opened door<br />
‘Marek barely opened <strong>the</strong> door. (He thought he was not go<strong>in</strong>g to make it.)’<br />
The four Polish exclusives raise <strong>the</strong> question how much underspecified can <strong>the</strong> lexical<br />
mean<strong>in</strong>g be. While all of <strong>the</strong>m share <strong>the</strong> scalar mean<strong>in</strong>g component (10a), <strong>the</strong> scale as<br />
def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> (10c) cannot be entirely context dependent, so perhaps more f<strong>in</strong>e gra<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
descriptions (as <strong>in</strong> (10a-d) for dopiero and ledwie) should be specified for <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
exclusives cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistically? How much can mirativity be detached from evaluativity<br />
which is a general property of degree related expressions (Rett 2010)?<br />
(10) “tylkoC ϕ” “dopieroC ϕ” “ledwieC ϕ” “aż/čakC ϕ”<br />
a. λw.¬∃p [p ∈S & p(w) = 1 & ⟦ϕ⟧
Satoshi Tomioka (Delaware)<br />
Focus Matters <strong>in</strong> Neo-Hambl<strong>in</strong> Semantics<br />
The recent re-emergence of Hambl<strong>in</strong> semantics of <strong>in</strong>terrogatives (e.g., L<strong>in</strong> 1996, Shimoyama<br />
1999, Kratzer and Shimoyama 2005) has proved fruitful <strong>in</strong> many areas, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> analysis<br />
of wh-<strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ites. In Beck’s (2006) rendition of Hambl<strong>in</strong> semantics, two additional advantages<br />
are ga<strong>in</strong>ed. (i) A formal relation between a wh-phrase and a Q-morpheme is established:<br />
Wh-phrases only have focus values (= <strong>the</strong>ir Hambl<strong>in</strong> denotations), lack<strong>in</strong>g ord<strong>in</strong>ary values.<br />
Any constituent that conta<strong>in</strong>s a wh-phrase also has no ord<strong>in</strong>ary value until it meets a Q-<br />
Operator <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> derivation. The role of <strong>the</strong> Q-Operator is to elevate <strong>the</strong> focus value of a<br />
wh-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g constituent to <strong>the</strong> ord<strong>in</strong>ary value. (ii) The prosodic similarities between a<br />
wh-phrase and focus is expla<strong>in</strong>ed: Sabel (2006) and Haida (2007) enlist many languages <strong>in</strong><br />
which wh-phrases act as though <strong>the</strong>y are focused morphosyntactically. Beck’s analysis bodes<br />
well with this wh-(semantic) focus correspondence (cf. Truckenbrodt, to appear).<br />
In this paper, I will fur<strong>the</strong>r exam<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> wh-focus correlation with special attention<br />
to ‘double-focus’ cases (Krifka 1991, Wold 1996). Both wh-phrases and focus-associates<br />
with operators like only are required to have non-s<strong>in</strong>gleton focus values by <strong>the</strong>ir semantics,<br />
<strong>in</strong>dependently of <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>formation structural statuses. Hence, <strong>the</strong>y can be backgrounded<br />
(a.k.a second occurrence focus) or <strong>the</strong>y can be additionally focused, as shown <strong>in</strong> (1).<br />
(1) a.‘Ann asked what Sue likes, right?’ ‘No, she asked WHO she likes.’<br />
b. ‘Ann only greeted BELLA.’ ‘No, she only greeted CASEY.’<br />
The first question that arises is; how can one get <strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g of a contrasted wh-phrase<br />
when a wh-phrase itself has no ord<strong>in</strong>ary semantic value? Beck’s semantics can actually deal<br />
with a case like (1a) with a m<strong>in</strong>imal modification: All wh-phrases, even morphologically<br />
simplex ones (e.g., who, what) are decomposed with an NP restriction and a wh-determ<strong>in</strong>er.<br />
Then, (i) The Hambl<strong>in</strong> denotation is derived by <strong>the</strong> choice function mean<strong>in</strong>g of a Detwh.<br />
(ii) A contrastive focus on a wh-phrase is associated with <strong>the</strong> NP restriction. (iii) Both<br />
<strong>the</strong> Detwh and <strong>the</strong> restriction get focus-<strong>in</strong>dices. The first is required by <strong>the</strong> semantics of a<br />
wh, and <strong>the</strong> second comes from <strong>the</strong> constrastiveness. (iv) The <strong>in</strong>dex on <strong>the</strong> Detwh is bound<br />
by <strong>the</strong> closest Q-morpheme, and <strong>the</strong> one on <strong>the</strong> NP ‘passes up’ to a higher focus b<strong>in</strong>der<br />
(i.e., ∼). [Note: A focus <strong>in</strong>dex corresponds to a designated variable that is <strong>in</strong>terpreted by a<br />
dist<strong>in</strong>guished assignment (Kratzer 1991). And importantly; (a) � αFi� g,h = h(i) if i is <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
doma<strong>in</strong> of h. O<strong>the</strong>rwise, � αFi� g,h = � α � g . (b) h beg<strong>in</strong>s with <strong>the</strong> empty doma<strong>in</strong> (= { }).<br />
(c) An F-<strong>in</strong>dex b<strong>in</strong>der <strong>in</strong>troduces its <strong>in</strong>dex <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> doma<strong>in</strong> of h.] (2) is <strong>the</strong> computation of<br />
<strong>the</strong> second sentence <strong>in</strong> (1a).<br />
(2) a. [who] contrastive focus ⇒ [ whF1 [person]F2]<br />
b. � Q1 [CP [ whF1 [ person]F2] Sue likes ] � g = {p: p = � CP � g,h{f/1}<br />
= {p: p = Sue likes f(person) | f∈D, e >}<br />
c. �∼C2 [IP Anna asked Q1 [ whF1 [ person]F2] Sue likes]] � g,h = {p: p = � IP � g,h{P/2} }<br />
= {p: p =Anna asked which P Sue likes | P∈D< e, t >}<br />
If a focus b<strong>in</strong>der ∼ is also selective, <strong>the</strong> story for (1b) is <strong>the</strong> same except that two <strong>in</strong>dices<br />
are assigned to <strong>the</strong> same constituent (cf. Wold 1996).<br />
(3) a. ∼C2 [ Anna onlyD [∼D1 greeted [[CASEY]2]1]<br />
b. � ∼D1 greeted [[CASEY]2]1� g,h{x/1} = {λy. y greeted x | x ∈ De}<br />
c. � ∼C2 [Anna only greeted [[CASEY]]1]2� g,h{x/2} = {Anna only greeted x | x ∈ De}<br />
1
However, this strategy cannot be extended to (1b) <strong>in</strong> Beck (2006). A focus operator ∼ is<br />
argued to be unselective, and <strong>the</strong> closer operator (∼D above) closes off <strong>the</strong> focus mean<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of Casey, after which no F-<strong>in</strong>dex is left for <strong>the</strong> higher operator (= ∼C) to b<strong>in</strong>d. In order to<br />
make <strong>the</strong> parallelism between (1a) and (1b) <strong>in</strong>tact, I propose that, while a novel ∼ operator<br />
is unselective, a second occurrence ∼ is selective. The <strong>in</strong>tuition beh<strong>in</strong>d this amendment to<br />
Beck’s <strong>the</strong>ory is as follows. Focus sensitive adverbs like only are considered ‘familiar’ not<br />
only because <strong>the</strong>y <strong>the</strong><strong>ms</strong>elves had appeared <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> previous discourse but also because <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
associations with <strong>the</strong> designated foci are familiar. A familiar ∼ operator <strong>the</strong>refore does not<br />
freely extend its w<strong>in</strong>gs and b<strong>in</strong>d novel focus variables.<br />
The proposed amendment not only provides a unified analysis of contrasted wh-phrases<br />
and contrasted focus-associated phrases but also makes correct predictions <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r areas.<br />
First, <strong>in</strong> a multiple foci structure where <strong>the</strong>re are two ∼ operators, one novel and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
familiar, it is expected that <strong>the</strong> novel one must have scope over <strong>the</strong> familiar one. In <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
scope configuration, <strong>the</strong> novel ∼ operator accidentally b<strong>in</strong>ds both foci, leav<strong>in</strong>g noth<strong>in</strong>g for<br />
<strong>the</strong> old operator to b<strong>in</strong>d. This prediction is <strong>in</strong> accordance with von F<strong>in</strong>tel’s (1994, p 49, fn.<br />
44) observation on <strong>the</strong> order<strong>in</strong>g asymmetry of two focus operators. The o<strong>the</strong>r phenomenon<br />
that <strong>the</strong> amended analysis works well is what is called an <strong>in</strong>tervention effect, which Beck<br />
(2006) def<strong>in</strong>es as a focus <strong>in</strong>tervention shown <strong>in</strong> (4). In this configuration, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terven<strong>in</strong>g ∼<br />
C (an unselective b<strong>in</strong>der) accidentally b<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>the</strong> wh-phrase.<br />
(4) * [Qi ..... [∼ C [ ...... whi ] ]<br />
There have been several facts reported, however, that suggest that, even <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> structure (4),<br />
discourse-familiar ∼ operators do not <strong>in</strong>duce <strong>in</strong>tervention effects (or <strong>the</strong>ir effects significantly<br />
weakened). In Beck and Kim (2006, p.167), <strong>the</strong> lack of <strong>the</strong> alternative question mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><br />
(5) is attributed to <strong>the</strong> focus <strong>in</strong>tervention effect.<br />
(5) Does only John like Mary or Susan? a. #Mary. [*AltQ] b. Yes. [Yes/NoQ]<br />
Eilam (2011) reports, however, that native speakers more readily accept <strong>the</strong> alternative question<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation when only John is backgrounded. Second, <strong>in</strong> many wh-<strong>in</strong>-situ languages<br />
that exhibit <strong>in</strong>tervention effects (e.g., Korean, Japanese, H<strong>in</strong>di), <strong>the</strong> effects are noticeably<br />
weak (or non-existent) <strong>in</strong> why-questions (cf. Miyagawa 1998, Ko 2005 among o<strong>the</strong>rs).<br />
(6) Amwuto/?John-pakkey way ku chayk-ul ilk-ci-anh-ass-ni?<br />
Anyone/John-only why that book-Acc read-CI-Neg-Past-Q<br />
‘Why did nobody/only John read that book?’ (Korean, from Ko 2005, (8a))<br />
Tomioka (2009) attributes this effect to <strong>the</strong> presupposition of why-questions. In ‘why p?’, p is<br />
presupposed, and <strong>the</strong> materials <strong>in</strong> p, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>tervener, belong to <strong>the</strong> background. In<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r constituent questions, comparable presuppositions are not guaranteed (Groenendijk<br />
and Stokhof 1984). Third, while many languages prefer plac<strong>in</strong>g phonologically reduced<br />
materials after focus, Amharic can put reduced focus expressions (e.g., only NP) before<br />
wh-phrases. Eilam (2011) po<strong>in</strong>ts out that Amharic shows no <strong>in</strong>tervention effects with those<br />
reduced focus expressions, as expected by <strong>the</strong> current proposal.<br />
Selected References: Beck, S. 2006: ‘Intervention effects follow from focus <strong>in</strong>terpretations,’ <strong>in</strong> NLS, 14:1-<br />
56. Eilam, A. 2011: Explorations <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Informational Component, Ph.D. <strong>the</strong>sis, UPenn. Ko, H.-J. 2005:<br />
Syntax of why-<strong>in</strong>-situ: Merge <strong>in</strong>to [Spec CP] <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> overt yyntax, NLLT, 23, 867-916. Tomioka, S. 2009:<br />
‘Why-questions, presuppositions, and <strong>in</strong>tervention effects,’ JEAL 18: 253-271. Wold, D. 1996: Long distance<br />
selective b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g: The case of focus, <strong>in</strong> The Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of SALT 6, 311-328.<br />
2
Jacopo Torregrossa (Verona)<br />
Encod<strong>in</strong>g contrast at PF<br />
Introduction. This contribution is based on <strong>the</strong> assumption that contrast is an autonomous<br />
<strong>in</strong>formational notion with its own semantic content (Vallduvì/Vilkuna 1998). Its ma<strong>in</strong> aim is<br />
to <strong>in</strong>vestigate how contrast is coded. On <strong>the</strong> one hand, some scholars work<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
cartographic framework propose that contrast is licensed <strong>in</strong> an A-bar position (ContrP) with<strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> C-doma<strong>in</strong> of <strong>the</strong> sentence (see Frascarelli/H<strong>in</strong>terhölz 2007). On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, several<br />
works on lab speech show that <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tervention of contrast activates specific prosodic effects,<br />
whenever it appears <strong>in</strong> association with ei<strong>the</strong>r focus (Breen et al. 2010) or topic (Braun/Laid<br />
2003). The aim of <strong>the</strong> work is threefold: i) to verify <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis that contrast is encoded<br />
syntactically, by <strong>in</strong>vestigat<strong>in</strong>g if it triggers phras<strong>in</strong>g effects at <strong>the</strong> syntax/phonology <strong>in</strong>terface;<br />
ii) to understand which acoustic parameters play a role <strong>in</strong> express<strong>in</strong>g contrastive<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretations (<strong>in</strong> both cases, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>formational notion of contrast will be studied <strong>in</strong> isolation<br />
from ei<strong>the</strong>r focus or topic, <strong>in</strong> whole compliance with <strong>the</strong> assumption about its autonomy); iii)<br />
to speculate on which model of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>teraction between <strong>the</strong> different components of language<br />
best fits with <strong>the</strong> outcome of <strong>the</strong> analysis.<br />
Theoretical framework. The <strong>in</strong>vestigation of i) is couched with<strong>in</strong> Zubizarreta’s (2010)<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory on <strong>the</strong> syntax/phonology <strong>in</strong>terface. Instead of assum<strong>in</strong>g a hierarchy of prosodic<br />
constituents which is <strong>in</strong>dependent of syntax (see Selkirk 1986), <strong>the</strong> author proposes that <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>ventory of prosodic categories could be reduced to boundaries which are dist<strong>in</strong>guished <strong>in</strong><br />
ter<strong>ms</strong> of strength. Crucially, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>sertion of <strong>the</strong>se boundaries is sensitive to <strong>the</strong> difference<br />
among syntactic projections. Therefore, I propose that weak prosodic boundaries are <strong>in</strong>serted<br />
to <strong>the</strong> right of constituents related to lexical projections (be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir specifiers, complements<br />
or adjuncts), while strong prosodic boundaries are <strong>in</strong>serted to <strong>the</strong> right of constituents related<br />
to discourse projections (e.g., TopP, FocP). (1) shows how that weak prosodic boundaries are<br />
represented as s<strong>in</strong>gle brackets, while strong prosodic boundaries as sequences of right and left<br />
brackets.<br />
(1) (DELLA PASTA)(mangerò) stasera) per cena). [FocP DELLA PASTAi[IP pro mangerò stasera ti]]<br />
(SOME MEAT I will eat tonight for d<strong>in</strong>ner).<br />
ContrP might trigger <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>sertion of a strong p-boundary, s<strong>in</strong>ce it is a discourse projection.<br />
Methods of <strong>the</strong> analysis. I set up a production experiment <strong>in</strong> which three Italian speakers<br />
were asked to read aloud some dialogues which were designed so that <strong>the</strong> same sentence<br />
appeared <strong>in</strong> five different discourse contexts. For example, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation of <strong>the</strong><br />
constituent Michelangelo <strong>in</strong> (2) varied so that it ended up to be: i) an <strong>in</strong>formation focus<br />
(+FOC); ii) a contrastive focus (+FOC,+CONTR); iii) an exhaustive focus<br />
(+FOC,+EXHAUST) – <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e with Horvath (2010), I assume that FocP encodes exhaustivity;<br />
iv) a ‘barely’ contrastive constituent (+CONTR) followed by an <strong>in</strong>formation focus; v) nei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
focused nor contrastive (-FOC,-CONTR).<br />
(2) Ho ripassato Michelangelo con la mia amica. (I reviewed Michelangelo with my friend).<br />
Up to now, <strong>the</strong> analysis has been carried out over 70 sentences and it will be extended <strong>in</strong> future.<br />
In order to verify if contrast is encoded syntactically, I measured <strong>the</strong> duration of <strong>the</strong> poststressed<br />
str<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> target words. The rationale beh<strong>in</strong>d this choice is that syllables preced<strong>in</strong>g<br />
strong prosodic boundaries are traditionally taken to undergo leng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g processes.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, <strong>the</strong> duration of post-stressed material with<strong>in</strong> contrastive constituents might be<br />
greater than that with<strong>in</strong> non-contrastive ones, if contrast is actually encoded <strong>in</strong> a dedicated<br />
functional projection (ContrP). In order to verify if contrast triggers specific prosodic effects,<br />
I labeled <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tonation pattern of each target constituent (TOBI annotation system) and I<br />
measured both <strong>the</strong> duration and <strong>the</strong> range of its stressed syllable.<br />
Results. As for <strong>the</strong> duration of <strong>the</strong> prosodic boundaries, I found that <strong>the</strong>re is a statistically<br />
significant difference between <strong>the</strong> values relative to exhaustive foci and those relative to each<br />
of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r semantic <strong>in</strong>terpretations (see Figure1 as an example). This suggests that only
exhaustive foci trigger <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>sertion of strong prosodic boundaries (as predicted by <strong>the</strong><br />
syntax/phonology model with<strong>in</strong> which my analysis is couched). The phonological analysis<br />
reveals that <strong>the</strong>re is no systematic correlation between <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tervention of contrast and <strong>the</strong> use<br />
of a particular type of accent (Figure2). On <strong>the</strong> contrary, <strong>the</strong> acoustical analysis shows that<br />
contrast always correlates with a greater duration and a higher pitch range of <strong>the</strong> stressed<br />
syllable with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> target constituent (Figure3).<br />
Conclusions and implications. My analysis suggests that contrast is not encoded <strong>in</strong> a<br />
dedicated functional projection (vs. Frascarelli/H<strong>in</strong>terhölz). The hypo<strong>the</strong>sis about <strong>the</strong><br />
existence of ContrP see<strong>ms</strong> to be challenged by o<strong>the</strong>r relevant data, like <strong>the</strong> fact that<br />
contrastive constituents can appear both <strong>in</strong>-situ and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> left-periphery and that <strong>the</strong>y can be<br />
freely recursive across <strong>the</strong> CP (3) and <strong>the</strong> IP, which challenges <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis of a one-to-one<br />
correspondence between syntactic projections and semantic <strong>in</strong>terpretations.<br />
(3) A: Il nonno ha lasciato l’orologio a suo fratello? B: Non lo so, ma la scacchiera a suo nipote l’ha<br />
lasciata. (A: Did <strong>the</strong> grandpa bequeath <strong>the</strong> clock to his bro<strong>the</strong>r? B: I don’t know, but it is to his<br />
grandson that he bequea<strong>the</strong>d <strong>the</strong> chessboard).<br />
More <strong>in</strong> general, <strong>the</strong> analysis suggests that on <strong>the</strong> one hand <strong>the</strong>re is no phonological correlate<br />
of contrast and on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand <strong>the</strong>re are several acoustic parameters that express contrastive<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretations. If this l<strong>in</strong>e of analysis is correct, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestigation on <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic encod<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
contrast provides empirical and conceptual evidence for <strong>the</strong> necessity to dist<strong>in</strong>guish<br />
phonology and phonetics as two different modules of grammar. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong><br />
syntax/phonology model assumed <strong>in</strong> this paper, phonology has a more direct connection with<br />
syntax than it is traditionally assumed <strong>in</strong> prosodic phonology. Assum<strong>in</strong>g C<strong>in</strong>que’s (1993)<br />
Stress Rule, both stress assignment and prosodic boundaries <strong>in</strong>sertion turn out to apply<br />
directly to <strong>the</strong> syntactic tree. On <strong>the</strong> contrary, phonetics has been shown to be syntax-bl<strong>in</strong>d<br />
and sensitive to <strong>in</strong>terpretive dist<strong>in</strong>ctions. This last claim has significant implications for <strong>the</strong><br />
general model of <strong>the</strong> architecture of grammar.<br />
Figure1: Duration (<strong>ms</strong>.) of post-stressed<br />
material <strong>in</strong> contrastive foci and exhaustive<br />
foci.<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
50<br />
0<br />
(+CONTR,+F<br />
OC)<br />
(+FOC,+EXH<br />
AUST)<br />
(+CONTR)<br />
(-CONTR,-<br />
FOC)<br />
0<br />
Figure3: Values of <strong>the</strong> range (Hz) of <strong>the</strong><br />
accented syllables <strong>in</strong> contrastive and noncontrastive<br />
contexts.<br />
Figure2: Frequency of <strong>in</strong>formational functions<br />
expressed by each type of accent.<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
(+CONTR)<br />
(-FOC) (-CONTR)<br />
(+FOC)<br />
(+EXHAUST.)<br />
(+FOC)<br />
Essential bibliography: Breen M./E. Federenko/M.<br />
Wagner/E. Gibson, 2010, Acoustic correlates of <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
structure, Language and Cognitive Processes 25(7/9), 1044-<br />
1098; C<strong>in</strong>que G., 1993, A null <strong>the</strong>ory of phrase and compound<br />
stress, LI 24(2), 239-282; Frascarelli, M./R. H<strong>in</strong>terhölzl, 2007,<br />
Types of topics <strong>in</strong> German and Italian, <strong>in</strong> S. W<strong>in</strong>kler/K.<br />
Schwabe (eds.), On Information Structure Mean<strong>in</strong>g and Form,<br />
A<strong>ms</strong>terdam/Philadelphia: John Benjam<strong>in</strong>s, 87-116. Horvath J.,<br />
2010, "Discourse-Features", Syntactic Displacement and <strong>the</strong><br />
Status of Contrast, L<strong>in</strong>gua 120, 1346-1369; Selkirk E., 1986,<br />
On derived doma<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> sentence phonology, Phonology<br />
Yearbook3, 371-405; Zubizarreta M.L., 2010, The Syntax and<br />
Prosody of Focus: The Bantu-Italian Connection, Iberia 2(1),<br />
131-168.
Coppe van Urk (MIT)<br />
!<br />
" " "<br />
" #<br />
"<br />
$ %&'<br />
%&' ( $ ) * + * #*<br />
* , - "* ./ * * 0 * * / ,1<br />
2 " 2 % $3 4 5 6776869:'<br />
; % 4 5<br />
6776' / < % 677= 67&7'<br />
- 4 % 67&7' "<br />
" *<br />
; %6' %> 4<br />
"<br />
&?:&3 @ 6777'<br />
%6' " A A<br />
* %B'<br />
%B' C! A 4 A<br />
" " ; 8<br />
%9' ! C!<br />
> " "<br />
! " 4"<br />
" % 67&7'<br />
%D' C! A A<br />
%D' %@ 6777' " 4"<br />
" 8<br />
" 4"<br />
" " "<br />
! "#<br />
! "<br />
" ; 4" "<br />
;<br />
, % %= ''8<br />
%=' CE 2 A E 2<br />
" * "<br />
4 " * 8<br />
%:' CE 2 A<br />
,<br />
- ; $ 8<br />
%F' C, " A 4<br />
2 " A # 2<br />
"<br />
8
4 %677:' "<br />
< %< ' % &?=:' , ;<br />
4 ; 8<br />
%?' C< A A " . ! ( ! A " +<br />
< 8 ;<br />
; %G 5 E 4 677B3<br />
/ 677:' ><br />
* % " #$<br />
" C% '<br />
" # 4 ;<br />
%, H . I 677D'8<br />
%&7' CJ A
Kai von F<strong>in</strong>tel (MIT), Danny Fox (Hebrew U./MIT) & Sab<strong>in</strong>e Iatridou (MIT)<br />
Def<strong>in</strong>iteness as Maximal Informativeness<br />
The unified L<strong>in</strong>k-style semantics for <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite article relies on an <strong>in</strong>herent order<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
objects, a part-whole order<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of <strong>in</strong>dividuals.<br />
(1) �<strong>the</strong>�(φ〈α,t〉) is def<strong>in</strong>ed only if <strong>the</strong>re is a maximal object x (based on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>herent<br />
order<strong>in</strong>g of elements <strong>in</strong> Dα), such that φ(x). When def<strong>in</strong>ed, �<strong>the</strong>�(φ) refers to<br />
that maximal object.<br />
The φ refers to <strong>the</strong> maximal φ-object: <strong>the</strong> unique φ <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>gular case, <strong>the</strong> maximal<br />
plurality conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g all φ-<strong>in</strong>dividuals <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> plural case, and <strong>the</strong> maximal collection of<br />
φ-stuff <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> mass case.<br />
We propose an alternative account: maximality is def<strong>in</strong>ed with respect to a different<br />
order<strong>in</strong>g, that of “relative <strong>in</strong>formativity” i.e. asymmetrical entailment. Strength relates<br />
propositions, but, when given a property, can be def<strong>in</strong>ed derivatively for <strong>in</strong>dividuals.<br />
(2) �<strong>the</strong>�(φ〈α,st〉) is def<strong>in</strong>ed only if <strong>the</strong>re is an object x such that φ(x) is <strong>the</strong> maximally<br />
<strong>in</strong>formative proposition among <strong>the</strong> true propositions of <strong>the</strong> form φ(. . .)<br />
(henceforth <strong>the</strong> most <strong>in</strong>formative object <strong>in</strong> φ). When def<strong>in</strong>ed, �<strong>the</strong>�(φ) refers to<br />
that most <strong>in</strong>formative φ-object.<br />
The most <strong>in</strong>formative <strong>in</strong>dividual with respect to property φ is that <strong>in</strong>dividual from<br />
whose be<strong>in</strong>g φ we can deduce <strong>the</strong> φ-ness of all o<strong>the</strong>r φ-<strong>in</strong>dividual.<br />
For <strong>the</strong> basic cases discussed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> literature, L<strong>in</strong>k’s def<strong>in</strong>ition and our alternative<br />
co<strong>in</strong>cide. Assume that John, Bill, and Sam are <strong>the</strong> only boys. Then <strong>the</strong> boys will denote<br />
<strong>the</strong> maximal plurality made up of those three <strong>in</strong>dividuals, both on L<strong>in</strong>k’s account (s<strong>in</strong>ce<br />
that is <strong>the</strong> maximal boy-plurality) and on ours: <strong>the</strong> plurality made up of those three<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividuals is exactly that plurality from whose be<strong>in</strong>g all boys we can deduce <strong>the</strong> boyness<br />
of any of its components. Any smaller plurality would be less <strong>in</strong>formative (from<br />
John and Bill be<strong>in</strong>g boys we can’t deduce that Sam is a boy).<br />
In fact, both L<strong>in</strong>k’s proposal and ours make <strong>the</strong> same prediction for any property<br />
that is upward monotone <strong>in</strong> a technical sense. Properties of degrees such as λd. John<br />
is d tall or λd. John has n many children are upward monotone (say<strong>in</strong>g that John has<br />
4 children is more <strong>in</strong>formative than say<strong>in</strong>g that he has 3). Hence under both accounts<br />
def<strong>in</strong>ite descriptions such as John’s height or <strong>the</strong> number of children that John has will<br />
refer (<strong>in</strong> any world w) to <strong>the</strong> maximal object <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> extension of <strong>the</strong> property <strong>in</strong> w.<br />
Once we look at properties that are not upward monotone wrt <strong>in</strong>formativity, L<strong>in</strong>k’s<br />
proposal and ours make different predictions. First consider properties that are downward<br />
monotone. These are cases where <strong>the</strong> smallest amount/object is more <strong>in</strong>formative<br />
— unlike <strong>the</strong> earlier examples, which characterized cases where <strong>the</strong> largest object/amount<br />
is <strong>the</strong> most <strong>in</strong>formative. Here is such a case:<br />
(3) I have <strong>the</strong> amount of flour sufficient to bake a cake.<br />
Propositions of <strong>the</strong> form d-much flour is sufficient to bake a cake become more <strong>in</strong>formative<br />
<strong>the</strong> smaller d is. We thus correctly predict that <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite description <strong>in</strong> (3) should<br />
refer to <strong>the</strong> m<strong>in</strong>imum amount of flour that would yield a true proposition, i.e. to <strong>the</strong><br />
m<strong>in</strong>imum amount that would suffice for cake bak<strong>in</strong>g. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
1
L<strong>in</strong>k’s account, <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite description <strong>in</strong> this sentence should be undef<strong>in</strong>ed, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>re<br />
can be no maximal amount of flour that is sufficient to bake a cake; as noted by Beck<br />
and Rullmann (1999), <strong>in</strong> a slightly different context, if an amount of flour, f , suffices to<br />
bake a cake, so does any amount larger than f .<br />
So we see that a def<strong>in</strong>ite description of <strong>the</strong> form <strong>the</strong> φ alternates between referr<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
<strong>the</strong> m<strong>in</strong>imal or <strong>the</strong> maximal <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> extension depend<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> monotonicity<br />
of <strong>the</strong> property φ. We get a maximality effect when φ is upward monotone and a<br />
m<strong>in</strong>imality effect when φ is downward monotone as <strong>in</strong> (3).<br />
Once <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple is clear, it is easy to construct fur<strong>the</strong>r cases show<strong>in</strong>g a m<strong>in</strong>imality<br />
effect: consider, for example, <strong>the</strong> number of Greek soldiers who toge<strong>the</strong>r can destroy<br />
<strong>the</strong> Trojan army. For L<strong>in</strong>k, this would result <strong>in</strong> a presupposition failure, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
no maximal number of Greek soldiers that toge<strong>the</strong>r can destroy <strong>the</strong> Trojan army (<strong>the</strong><br />
more <strong>the</strong> merrier). For us, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>the</strong> description will pick out <strong>the</strong> m<strong>in</strong>imal<br />
number of soldiers that toge<strong>the</strong>r can destroy <strong>the</strong> Trojan army, because that is <strong>the</strong> most<br />
<strong>in</strong>formative such number (once we know that number we can deduce that all larger<br />
numbers would also do).<br />
We conclude that L<strong>in</strong>k’s <strong>the</strong>ory got <strong>the</strong> right results only because <strong>the</strong> focus was<br />
limited to upward monotone properties.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, <strong>the</strong>re are properties that are non-monotone. For <strong>the</strong>se, we predict a presupposition<br />
failure when <strong>the</strong>re is no unique <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> extension of <strong>the</strong> property.<br />
Consider <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g. You are try<strong>in</strong>g to fit books (x, y, z, w, v . . . ) on shelves of various<br />
size (a, b, c . . . ). Suppose that book x toge<strong>the</strong>r with book y fit perfectly on shelf a, and<br />
book x, y, and z toge<strong>the</strong>r fit perfectly on shelf b. Suppose also that no o<strong>the</strong>r comb<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
of books fits perfectly on a shelf. Under L<strong>in</strong>k’s proposal, <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite description <strong>in</strong><br />
#Pass me <strong>the</strong> books that toge<strong>the</strong>r fit perfectly on a shelf should be acceptable: it should<br />
refer to <strong>the</strong> larger collection of books that fit perfectly on a shelf, namely, x + y + z. Our<br />
analysis, <strong>in</strong> contrast, correctly predicts that <strong>the</strong> description suffers from presupposition<br />
failure.<br />
An alternation similar to <strong>the</strong> one between m<strong>in</strong>imality and maximality shows up <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> doma<strong>in</strong> of times as well. In (4) <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite description refers to <strong>the</strong> latest time, t,<br />
such that Bill lived <strong>in</strong> Boston until t, while <strong>in</strong> (5) <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite refers to <strong>the</strong> earliest time, t,<br />
such that Bill has lived <strong>in</strong> Boston s<strong>in</strong>ce t.<br />
(4) January 5th 1999 is <strong>the</strong> date until which Bill had lived <strong>in</strong> Boston.<br />
(5) January 5th 1999 is <strong>the</strong> date s<strong>in</strong>ce which Bill has lived <strong>in</strong> Paris.<br />
We expect this alternation and do not need to stipulate it <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> semantics of <strong>the</strong><br />
temporal operators until or s<strong>in</strong>ce. In both cases, <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite description refers to <strong>the</strong><br />
most <strong>in</strong>formative time that satisfies <strong>the</strong> relevant property (λt. Bill had lived <strong>in</strong> Boston<br />
until t, <strong>in</strong> (6) and λt. Bill has lived <strong>in</strong> Paris s<strong>in</strong>ce t, <strong>in</strong> (7)). The difference, once aga<strong>in</strong>, has<br />
to do with <strong>the</strong> monotonicity of <strong>the</strong> property.<br />
2
Mat<strong>the</strong>w Wagers (UC Santa Cruz), Manuel Borja (Inetnon Amot yan Kutturan Natibu) & Sandra Chung (UC Santa Cruz)<br />
WH Agreement and <strong>the</strong> Tim<strong>in</strong>g of Unbounded Dependency Formation:<br />
a Chamorro perspective on <strong>in</strong>crementality and accuracy <strong>in</strong> language comprehension<br />
SUMMARY. The comprehension of unbounded 1iller-‐gap dependencies proceeds actively<br />
and predictively: comprehenders posit gaps <strong>in</strong> particular syntactic positions before direct<br />
evidence that a constituent does not already occupy that position [1]. Evidence for active<br />
comprehension comes from a number of psychol<strong>in</strong>guistic paradig<strong>ms</strong> and varied (majority)<br />
languages [2]. An important question concerns <strong>the</strong> sources and timecourse availability of<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation that shapes a comprehender’s expectations about <strong>the</strong> unbounded dependency.<br />
Island constra<strong>in</strong>ts are known to immediately restrict comprehenders’ hypo<strong>the</strong>ses: gaps are<br />
not predicted <strong>in</strong> doma<strong>in</strong>s where <strong>the</strong>y could not be licensed [3]. Lexically-‐projected<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation, like subcategorization and argument structure, can also provide clues to <strong>the</strong><br />
likely role of <strong>the</strong> extracted phrase. There is less empirical clarity about how those clues<br />
affect <strong>the</strong> comprehender’s predictions [4-‐6], and, <strong>in</strong> particular, what happens when<br />
expectations are formed before lexical access of <strong>the</strong> verb [7].<br />
Here we <strong>in</strong>vestigate real-‐time sentence comprehension <strong>in</strong> Chamorro, whose<br />
grammar provides a morphological cue to <strong>the</strong> extraction site via its system of WH<br />
Agreement [8]. We report two major 1<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs: 1irst, displaced objects are only actively<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpreted semantically when <strong>the</strong> verb is (optionally) <strong>in</strong>1lected for WH Agreement.<br />
Secondly, when <strong>the</strong> verb occurs <strong>in</strong> its un<strong>in</strong>1lected form, comprehenders none<strong>the</strong>less have<br />
dif1iculty re-‐analyz<strong>in</strong>g an extraction which term<strong>in</strong>ates <strong>in</strong> a non-‐object position -‐ <strong>in</strong> our case,<br />
as a possessor. We argue this dif1iculty is a Chamorro analogue of <strong>the</strong> 1illed gap effect [9]. It<br />
suggests that comprehenders do actively posit a syntactic gap <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> un<strong>in</strong>1lected for<strong>ms</strong> even<br />
if <strong>the</strong>y don’t synchronously <strong>in</strong>terpret it, a conjecture recently made for English data [10].<br />
DESIGN. Chamorro is a verb-‐<strong>in</strong>itial Austronesian language with some 40-‐50,000 speakers,<br />
ma<strong>in</strong>ly <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mariana Islands [8]. Of particular <strong>in</strong>terest is its system of WH Agreement: a<br />
transitive verb whose argument has been A-‐bar extracted can be specially <strong>in</strong>1lected to<br />
re1lect <strong>the</strong> grammatical role of <strong>the</strong> extractee (as well as verbs along <strong>the</strong> extraction path) [8].<br />
As <strong>in</strong> example (1a), a subject extraction from a realis, transitive verb obligatorily triggers<br />
<strong>in</strong>1ixation of -‐um-‐ to <strong>the</strong> verb (cf. (1b), <strong>the</strong> unextracted version). Likewise, extractions of<br />
obliques obligatorily trigger a special verb form.<br />
(1)! (a)!Håyi na såstri l umåksi ! i magågu-mu?<br />
! ! who !L sea<strong>ms</strong>tress WH[nom].sew D clo<strong>the</strong>s-AGR?<br />
! ! “Which sea<strong>ms</strong>tress sewed your clo<strong>the</strong>s?”<br />
! (b)! Ha-låksi i såstri i magågu-mu<br />
! ! AGR-sew D sea<strong>ms</strong>tress D clo<strong>the</strong>s-AGR<br />
“The sea<strong>ms</strong>tress sewed your clo<strong>the</strong>s”<br />
Crucially, however, WH <strong>in</strong>1lection for object extractions is optional. Thus <strong>in</strong> (2a), <strong>the</strong> verb<br />
penta (‘pa<strong>in</strong>t’) is realized with <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>1ix -‐<strong>in</strong>-‐ and a 2nd Person agreement suf1ix -mu. But <strong>in</strong><br />
(2b), <strong>the</strong> agreement, un-, is <strong>the</strong> same as found <strong>in</strong> clauses with no extractions.<br />
(2)! (a)!Håfa na tråk p <strong>in</strong>entåm-mu! ta’lu un biåhi?<br />
! ! what!L truck WH[obj].pa<strong>in</strong>t-AGR aga<strong>in</strong> a time<br />
! (b)! Håfa na tråk un penta ta’lu un biåhi?<br />
! ! what!L truck AGR-pa<strong>in</strong>t aga<strong>in</strong> a time<br />
! ! BOTH: “Which truck did you pa<strong>in</strong>t over aga<strong>in</strong>?
The optionality of WH <strong>in</strong>1lection for object extractions for<strong>ms</strong> <strong>the</strong> basis for two real-‐<br />
time sentence comprehension studies that might elucidate how predictions with different<br />
sources <strong>in</strong>teract with <strong>the</strong> time-‐courses of active comprehension. The WH <strong>in</strong>1lection<br />
morpheme provides a clear cue <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>put for a particular analysis of <strong>the</strong> extractee,<br />
whereas an un<strong>in</strong>1lected form supplies a more <strong>in</strong>direct cue: <strong>the</strong> absence of obligatory subject<br />
or oblique extraction morphology is compatible with an object extraction. Moreover a non-‐<br />
WH-‐<strong>in</strong>1lected form is also used when <strong>the</strong> possessor of <strong>the</strong> object phrase is extracted (3).<br />
(3)! ! Håfa na tråk un penta ta’lu sanme’nåñ-ña?<br />
! ! what L truck! AGR pa<strong>in</strong>t aga<strong>in</strong> truck-AGR<br />
! ! “Which truck did you pa<strong>in</strong>t its front aga<strong>in</strong>?”<br />
Previous research suggests that comprehenders can immediately discard an object analysis<br />
if an extractee’s semantic features are <strong>in</strong>compatible with <strong>the</strong> verb and <strong>the</strong> verb’s argument<br />
structure signals o<strong>the</strong>r gap sites (e.g. object control verbs like persuade)[4]. Thus a non-‐<br />
WH-‐<strong>in</strong>1lected verb could forestall active comprehension ei<strong>the</strong>r by (a) signall<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> object<br />
analysis more slowly; or (b) clue<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> possibility of possessor extraction.<br />
To test whe<strong>the</strong>r active comprehension was dim<strong>in</strong>ished for un<strong>in</strong>1lected for<strong>ms</strong>, we<br />
crossed <strong>the</strong> semantic plausibility of an extractee as verb’s object [±PLAUS.OBJ] with <strong>the</strong><br />
presence of WH <strong>in</strong>1lection [±WH.INFLECT]: (4)-‐(5). We probed for an effect of semantic<br />
anomaly on <strong>the</strong> verb <strong>in</strong> two paradig<strong>ms</strong>: <strong>in</strong> Self-paced Listen<strong>in</strong>g, 40 native Chamorro<br />
speakers listened <strong>in</strong> an auditory mov<strong>in</strong>g w<strong>in</strong>dow paradigm and judged whe<strong>the</strong>r sentence<br />
made sense. In Passive Listen<strong>in</strong>g+Eye track<strong>in</strong>g, 72 native speakers listened to <strong>the</strong><br />
sentences passively and made <strong>the</strong> same judgement. Large ‘yes’/’no’ buttons were depicted<br />
on screen; participants’ gaze was recorded via a laptop webcam and later coded bl<strong>in</strong>d by a<br />
team of RAs unaware of <strong>the</strong> experimental manipulation. In both experiments <strong>the</strong>re were 12<br />
target ite<strong>ms</strong> and 28 ite<strong>ms</strong> counterbalanc<strong>in</strong>g for o<strong>the</strong>r factors. Experiments took place on<br />
Saipan, T<strong>in</strong>ian & Luta and all <strong>in</strong>structions, audio and text were <strong>in</strong> Chamorro.<br />
(4) (a)! [+PLAUS.OBJ, +WH.INFLECT]:! ! ⇢(2a)<br />
! (b)! [-PLAUS.OBJ, +WH.INFLECT]:<br />
! ! Håyi na ma’estru p<strong>in</strong>entåm-mu! ta’lu un biåhi?<br />
! ! who! L teacher WH[obj].pa<strong>in</strong>t-AGR aga<strong>in</strong> a time<br />
! ! “Which teacher did you pa<strong>in</strong>t over aga<strong>in</strong>?”<br />
(5)! (a)! [+PLAUS.OBJ, -WH.INFLECT]:! ⇢(3)<br />
! (b)! [-PLAUS.OBJ, -WH.INFLECT]:<br />
! ! Håyi na ma’estru un penta ta’lu tråk-ña?<br />
! ! what L teacher AGR pa<strong>in</strong>t aga<strong>in</strong> truck-AGR<br />
! ! “Which teacher did you pa<strong>in</strong>t his truck aga<strong>in</strong>?”<br />
For WH <strong>in</strong>1lected for<strong>ms</strong>, we 1<strong>in</strong>d clear evidence of active <strong>in</strong>terpretation of <strong>the</strong><br />
extractee, as <strong>in</strong>dicated by <strong>in</strong>creased listen<strong>in</strong>g times on <strong>the</strong> verb or <strong>in</strong>creased likelihood of<br />
look<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> ‘no’ response button when -PLAUS.OBJ. For un<strong>in</strong>1lected for<strong>ms</strong>, nei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
those effects are observed. However participants did systematically disprefer <strong>the</strong> possessor<br />
extractions if <strong>the</strong> extractee were -PLAUS.OBJ. We <strong>in</strong>terpret this as evidence that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
do beg<strong>in</strong> syntactic construction of <strong>the</strong> object analysis but have dif1iculty reanalyz<strong>in</strong>g<br />
[1] Frazier, L., & Flores D’Arcais, G. B. (1989). [2] Aoshima, S., Phillips, C., and We<strong>in</strong>berg, A. S. (2004).<br />
[3] Phillips, C. (2006). [4] Boland, J.E., et al. (1995) [5] Picker<strong>in</strong>g, M. & Traxler, M. (2003). [6] Staub<br />
2007. [7] Omaki et al. (2011) [8] Chung (1998) [9] Stowe (1986). [10] Wagers & Phillips (2009) [11]<br />
Ferreira et al. (1996).
Conjunct Morphology Marks Property SelfAscription <br />
<br />
Conjunct/Disjunct (CJ/DJ) languages lack person mark<strong>in</strong>g on verbs, employ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stead a <br />
special CJ verb form when (i) <strong>the</strong> subject of a declarative is 1st person (1), (ii) <strong>the</strong> <br />
subject of a question is 2nd person (5), or (iii) <strong>the</strong> verb appears <strong>in</strong> a de se attitude report <br />
(7). The DJ form appears elsewhere. Exs. from Kathmandu Newar (Hargreaves 2005): <br />
<br />
1. jī: a:pwa twan‐ā. <br />
1.ERG much dr<strong>in</strong>k‐PST.CJ <br />
‘I drank a lot/too much.’ <br />
<br />
2. chā a:pwa twan‐a. <br />
2.ERG much dr<strong>in</strong>k‐PST.DJ <br />
‘You drank a lot/too much.’ <br />
<br />
3. wā: a:pwa twan‐a. <br />
3.ERG much dr<strong>in</strong>k‐PST.DJ <br />
‘S/he drank a lot/too much.’ <br />
<br />
Stephen Wechsler (Texas)<br />
4. jī: a:pwa twan‐a lā? <br />
1.ERG much dr<strong>in</strong>k‐PST.DJ Q <br />
‘Did I dr<strong>in</strong>k a lot/too much?’ <br />
<br />
5. chā a:pwa twan‐ā lā? <br />
2.ERG much dr<strong>in</strong>k‐PST.CJ Q <br />
‘Did you dr<strong>in</strong>k a lot/too much?’ <br />
<br />
6. wā: a:pwa twan‐a lā? <br />
3.ERG much dr<strong>in</strong>k‐PST.DJ Q <br />
‘Did s/he dr<strong>in</strong>k a lot/too much?’ <br />
7. Syām‐ā a:pwa twan‐ā hā. <br />
Syam‐ERG much dr<strong>in</strong>k‐PST.CJ EVD <br />
‘Syami said that hei drank too much.’ <br />
<br />
CJ/DJ syste<strong>ms</strong> have been observed <strong>in</strong> S<strong>in</strong>o‐Tibetan, e.g. Newar (Hale 1980; Hargreaves <br />
2005); Nakh‐Daghestanian, e.g. Akhvakh (Creissels 2008) and Mehwb Dargwa (Bickel <br />
2008); Tsafiki (Barbacoan; Dick<strong>in</strong>son 2000); Trans New Gu<strong>in</strong>ea, e.g. Oksapm<strong>in</strong> <br />
(Loughnane 2009), Duna and Kaluli (San Roque 2011); Guambiano (Norcliffe 2011); <br />
Cha’palaa (Floyd 2011). <br />
Conjunct mark<strong>in</strong>g forces a hard look at a key question of <strong>the</strong> GLOW colloquium: <br />
<strong>the</strong> pragmatics‐grammar <strong>in</strong>terface. We put forth <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis that conjunct (CJ) verb <br />
morphology marks a verb phrase as denot<strong>in</strong>g a doxastic selfascribed property. <br />
Follow<strong>in</strong>g recent work by Hans Kamp, reference de se is modeled under <strong>the</strong> assumption <br />
that ‘self‐attribut<strong>in</strong>g thoughts take <strong>the</strong> form of predications of a special s<strong>in</strong>gular term <br />
that ‘represents <strong>the</strong> self’ to <strong>the</strong> agent as her self. We use <strong>the</strong> symbol i to play this part.’ <br />
(Kamp 2011, 7). Crucially, we posit a special type for i. A conjunct‐VP is a function from <br />
i‐type ter<strong>ms</strong> to beliefs. We dist<strong>in</strong>guish <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>in</strong>terlocutors’ discourse <br />
representations, as well as participant‐neutral ones. <br />
This hypo<strong>the</strong>sis applies to uses of CJ as follows: (i) A declarative utterance is a <br />
declaration of speaker belief. In 1st person subject CJ declaratives <strong>the</strong> speaker declares <br />
<strong>the</strong> belief that results from selfascrib<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> VPdenoted property: e.g. <strong>in</strong> 1 that belief is <br />
BEL(dranktoomuch(i)). (ii) A question is an <strong>in</strong>ducement to <strong>the</strong> addressee to declare a <br />
belief iff she holds it. In 2nd person subject CJ questions <strong>the</strong> addressee is <strong>in</strong>duced to <br />
declare <strong>the</strong> belief that results from self‐ascrib<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> VP‐denoted property iff she holds <br />
that belief. (iii) Reported speech us<strong>in</strong>g CJ reports someone’s self‐ascription. <br />
Illustrat<strong>in</strong>g with 1,4, 7, [a:pwa twanā]VP translates roughly as BEL(λi.dranktoomuch(i)). <br />
(More precisely, an attitude is modeled as a set with two elements, <strong>in</strong> this <br />
case: an anchored entity representation designat<strong>in</strong>g i as speaker; and a pair<strong>in</strong>g of an <br />
attitud<strong>in</strong>al mode, here BEL(ief), with a DRS whose universe conta<strong>in</strong>s a propositional <br />
discourse referent s and a condition s: dranktoomuch’(i).) In 1 <strong>the</strong> speaker declares
<strong>the</strong> belief result<strong>in</strong>g from self‐ascrib<strong>in</strong>g that property, namely β = BEL(dranktoomuch(i)). <br />
In 4 <strong>the</strong> addressee is <strong>in</strong>duced to declare β iff she hold it. In 7 Syam’s <br />
declaration of β is reported. <br />
This hypo<strong>the</strong>sis leads to <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g explanation for why CJ/DJ languages <br />
generally lack normal person mark<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> verb. By hypo<strong>the</strong>sis CJ is for property self‐<br />
ascription. In person‐mark<strong>in</strong>g, a subject pronoun is <strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> verb. But <br />
<strong>the</strong>n it saturates <strong>the</strong> subject role, produc<strong>in</strong>g a proposition, so <strong>the</strong> property is no longer <br />
available and <strong>the</strong> form of <strong>the</strong> verb cannot specify <strong>the</strong> mode of ascription as self‐<br />
ascription. <br />
This also offers an approach to two cross‐l<strong>in</strong>guistic tendencies that have been <br />
observed. (i) CJ is favored for properties for which self‐ascription is <strong>the</strong> most likely. <br />
(Example: Newar CJ is restricted to verbs of <strong>in</strong>tentional action (Hargreaves 2005).) (ii) <br />
CJ is favored where non‐self‐ascription would violate social proscriptions aga<strong>in</strong>st <br />
presum<strong>in</strong>g to know o<strong>the</strong>r people’s thoughts better than <strong>the</strong>y know <strong>the</strong><strong>ms</strong>elves. The <br />
particular restrictions vary cross‐l<strong>in</strong>guistically and can be grammaticalized. E.g. <strong>the</strong> <br />
Newar restriction just noted applies even <strong>in</strong> a third person de se report (Hargreaves <br />
2005, ex. 64). <br />
As far as we know this is <strong>the</strong> first formal semantic analysis of conjunct/disjunct <br />
syste<strong>ms</strong> to be proposed. It will be compared to previous <strong>in</strong>formal analyses that treat CJ <br />
mark<strong>in</strong>g as specify<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> subject of <strong>the</strong> clause is <strong>the</strong> epistemic authority or <br />
<strong>in</strong>formant: speaker of a declarative, addressee of a question. Bickel 2008 treats such <br />
mark<strong>in</strong>g as <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g epistemic scope on an <strong>in</strong>dividual argument and reasons that <br />
‘def<strong>in</strong>ite knowledge is possible only if <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>formant is <strong>in</strong> fact identical with <strong>the</strong> <br />
argument.’ (Bickel 2008, 6). But this assumption of ‘privileged access’ is controversial. <br />
We take a slightly different tack, tak<strong>in</strong>g de se attribution as <strong>the</strong> basic significance of CJ <br />
and o<strong>the</strong>r effects as derivative. <br />
The account is fairly elegant, but requires agent‐relative DRS’s. These have been <br />
<strong>in</strong>dependently motivated by speaker‐addressee knowledge asymmetries <strong>in</strong> epistemic <br />
specificity (H. Kamp and Bende‐Farkas 2006) and person‐number paradigm universals <br />
(Wechsler 2010). <br />
<br />
Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. VerbAgreement and EpistemicMark<strong>in</strong>g: a Typological Journey <br />
from <strong>the</strong> Himalayas to <strong>the</strong> Caucasus. In Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier, ed. <br />
Chomolangma, Demawend, and Kasbek, 1–14. • Creissels, Denis. 2008. “Person <br />
variations <strong>in</strong> Akhvakh verb morphology: functional motivation and orig<strong>in</strong> of an <br />
uncommon pattern.” STUFLanguage Typology and Universals 61 (4): 309–325. • <br />
Dick<strong>in</strong>son, C. 2000. “Mirativity <strong>in</strong> Tsafiki.” Studies <strong>in</strong> Language 24 (2) (September): 379‐<br />
422. • Floyd, Simeon. 2011. Conjunct/disjunct mark<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Cha’palaa HANDOUT. • Hale, <br />
A. 1980. “Person markers: F<strong>in</strong>ite conjunct and disjunct verb for<strong>ms</strong> <strong>in</strong> Newari.” Papers <strong>in</strong> <br />
SouthEast Asian <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> 7: 95–106. • Hargreaves, David. 2005. “Agency and <br />
<strong>in</strong>tentional action <strong>in</strong> Kathmandu Newar.” Himalayan <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> 5: 1–48. • Kamp, H., and <br />
A. Bende‐Farkas. 2006. “Epistemic specificity from a communication‐<strong>the</strong>oretic <br />
perspective.” unpublished <strong>ms</strong>., University of Stuttgart. • Kamp, Hans. 2011. Represent<strong>in</strong>g <br />
De Se Thoughts and <strong>the</strong>ir Reports presented at <strong>the</strong> Workshop on De Se Attitudes, March <br />
16‐18, 2011, Rio de Janeiro. • Loughnane, Robyn. 2009. A grammar of Oksapm<strong>in</strong>. • <br />
Norcliffe, Elisabeth. 2011. Conjunct/disjunct patterns <strong>in</strong> Guambiano. LSA <strong>in</strong>stitute. • San <br />
Roque, Lila. 2011. An <strong>in</strong>troduction to conjunct/disjunct alignment <strong>in</strong> Duna and Kaluli <br />
(Trans New Gu<strong>in</strong>ea). • Wechsler, Stephen. 2010. “What ‘you’ and ‘I’ mean to each o<strong>the</strong>r: <br />
Person <strong>in</strong>dexicals, self‐ascription, and <strong>the</strong>ory of m<strong>in</strong>d.” Language 86 (2): 332‐365.
Masaya Yoshida (Northwestern), Chizuru Nakao (Daito Bunka) & Iván Ortega-Santos (Memphis)<br />
On ellipsis structures <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g a wh-remnant and a non-wh-remnant simultaneously<br />
Introduction: While both Sluic<strong>in</strong>g and Stripp<strong>in</strong>g have received detailed attention <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> field<br />
of generative grammar, this is not <strong>the</strong> case for ellipsis structures that <strong>in</strong>volve both a whremnant<br />
and a non-wh-remnant simultaneously. Typical examples are found <strong>in</strong> (1)-(2).<br />
(1) A: He oído que Juan ama a María. Spanish<br />
I heard that Juan loves to María.<br />
B: Por qué [XP a María] (y no a Susana)?<br />
Why [XP to Mary] (but not to Susana)?<br />
B: Why [XP Mary] (but not Susan)?<br />
(2) A: Alguno de estos tíos estaba comiendo chorizo.<br />
One of <strong>the</strong>se guys was eat<strong>in</strong>g chorizo.<br />
B: ¿Y cuál de ellos PAELLA?<br />
and which of <strong>the</strong>m paella?<br />
In spite of <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>se constructions look superficially similar, one <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> goals of<br />
this paper is to show that <strong>the</strong>y are two dist<strong>in</strong>ct construction types, namely, Why-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
where <strong>the</strong> wh-element is restricted to why, and ano<strong>the</strong>r phrase, a remnant, which is identical<br />
to an element <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> antecedent clause, (e.g. María), show up fragmentally, (1), as opposed to<br />
Wh-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g, that is to say, which <strong>in</strong>volves a wh-element o<strong>the</strong>r than why, and a remnant<br />
which contrasts with a phrase <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> antecedent clause, (2). We show that remnants <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se<br />
two constructions go through different operations and are located <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> different positions <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> syntactic structure. More specifically, we establish <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g clai<strong>ms</strong>: (a) Why-<br />
Stripp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>volves a a base-generated why and leftward movement of a focused non-wh<br />
phrase followed by clausal ellipsis; (b) Wh-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>volves movement of wh-remnant<br />
followed by rightward movement of a focused phrase and clausal ellipsis (Nev<strong>in</strong>s 2008). To<br />
<strong>the</strong> best of our knowledge it is <strong>the</strong> first time those two construction types are thoroughly<br />
compared.<br />
Analysis: Why-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> clear opposition to Wh-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g, allows for preposition<br />
strand<strong>in</strong>g (cf. (3) & (4)), shows effects of repair by ellipsis (cf. (5) & (6)), <strong>the</strong> antecedent<br />
clause may precede elided clause (cf. (7) & (8)), and is not clause-bound (cf. (5) & (9):<br />
(3) A: Juan habló con María en la fiesta. Why-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Juan talked with María <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> party<br />
B: Por qué (con) María?<br />
Why (with) María<br />
(4) A: Alguno de estos tíos habló con María. Wh-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g<br />
B: ¿(Y) cuál de ellos *(CON) SUSANA?<br />
(and) which of <strong>the</strong>m with Susana?<br />
“(and) Which of <strong>the</strong>se guys with Susana?”<br />
(5) A: Juan jura que va a conocer [a una chica que habla francés]. Why-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Juan swears that he will meet to a girl who speaks French<br />
B: Por qué francés (y no alemán)?<br />
Why French (and not German)<br />
(6) A: Juan jura que va a conocer al hombre al que algunos de estos tíos le sirvió la<br />
Juan swears that he-will to meet <strong>the</strong> man to whom some of <strong>the</strong>se guys served <strong>the</strong><br />
paella. Wh-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g<br />
paella<br />
B: *Y cuál de ellos el chorizo?<br />
And which of <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> chorizo<br />
(7) No sé por qué a ti, pero María quiere verte. Why-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Not know why to you, but María want to see-you<br />
(8) ?*No sé cuáles de ellos el chorizo, pero algunos de estos tíos se comieron la paella.
Not know which of <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> chorizo, but some of <strong>the</strong>se guys ate <strong>the</strong> paella Wh-Str.<br />
(9) A: Alguno de estos tíos negó que Juan hubiera hablado con María. Wh-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Some of <strong>the</strong>se guys denied that Juan had talked with María<br />
B: *Y cuál de ellos con Susana?<br />
And which of <strong>the</strong>m with Susana<br />
Thus, Why-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g shows signature properties of leftward movement (e.g., Sluic<strong>in</strong>g; see<br />
Merchant 1999), whereas Wh-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g shows signature properties of rightwards movement.<br />
As is well-known, rightward movement such as Heavy NP Shift (HNPS) does nei<strong>the</strong>r allow<br />
for long-distance movement, e.g. (10), nor for P-strand<strong>in</strong>g (Jayaseelan 1990, a.o.); see <strong>the</strong><br />
unacceptability of (11)b, as opposed to (11)c. Needless to say, if we are deal<strong>in</strong>g with<br />
movement to <strong>the</strong> right, this would expla<strong>in</strong> (8).<br />
(10) *Mary said [that John broke tx] to her mo<strong>the</strong>r [<strong>the</strong> statue that he had spent <strong>the</strong><br />
whole summer carv<strong>in</strong>g]x.<br />
(11) a. John counted on a total stranger for support.<br />
b. *John counted on for support a total stranger.<br />
c. John counted for support on a total stranger. (Jayaseelan 1990: 66)<br />
Crucially, both Why and Wh-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>volve a full-fledged syntactic structure at <strong>the</strong><br />
ellipsis site as shown by connectivity effects such as selectional restrictions and b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
connectivity. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, w.r.t. analysis of Why-Stripp<strong>in</strong>g, given <strong>the</strong> standard assumption<br />
that wh-phrases o<strong>the</strong>r than Why land <strong>in</strong> [Spec,FocP], we expect those o<strong>the</strong>r wh-phrases to be<br />
unable to co-occur with <strong>the</strong> (repeated) focused XP. The prediction is fulfilled, (12).<br />
(12) A: Juan besó a María.<br />
Juan kissed to María<br />
B: Por qué a María?/ *Dónde a María?/*Cuándo a María?/*Quién a María?<br />
B: Why to María?/*Where to María?/*When to María?/*Who to María?<br />
In turn, we assume that <strong>the</strong> remnants must escape <strong>the</strong> ellipsis <strong>in</strong> order to be pronounced, and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rwise-covert focus movement is manifested overtly only under ellipsis (see Nakao 2008<br />
for a similar approach to Stripp<strong>in</strong>g). Under current <strong>the</strong>oretical assumption where <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />
overt/covert movement dist<strong>in</strong>ction, but ra<strong>the</strong>r a choice on which copy of <strong>the</strong> movement cha<strong>in</strong><br />
to pronounce, this means that PF constra<strong>in</strong>ts force <strong>the</strong> pronunciation of <strong>the</strong> upper copy. We<br />
claim that <strong>the</strong> situation is parallel to Multiple Sluic<strong>in</strong>g. Although <strong>the</strong> second wh-phrase<br />
usually undergoes covert wh-movement, (13), it can escape <strong>the</strong> TP only when <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
ellipsis, (14) (see Lasnik 2006 and references <strong>the</strong>re<strong>in</strong>, for discussions on Multiple Sluic<strong>in</strong>g):<br />
(13) a. Qué compré yo para quién?<br />
What bought I for who?<br />
b. *Qué para quién compré yo?<br />
What for who bought I<br />
(14) (?)Yo compré algo para alguien, pero no recuerdo [CP qué1 para quién2 [IP<br />
I bought someth<strong>in</strong>g for somebody, but not remember.I what for who<br />
yo compré t1 t2]].<br />
I bought t1 t2<br />
References<br />
Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil. A. 1990. Incomplete Vp Deletion and Gapp<strong>in</strong>g. L<strong>in</strong>guistic<br />
Analysis 20:64-81.<br />
Lasnik, Howard. 2006. Multiple Sluic<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> English. Ms. University of Maryland, College<br />
Park.<br />
Nev<strong>in</strong>s, Andrew. 2008. “Sluic<strong>in</strong>g ≠ Stripp<strong>in</strong>g: Evidence from P-Strand<strong>in</strong>g”. Paper presented<br />
at The 3rd Annual Moscow Student Conference on <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong>, Moscow, April 2008.<br />
Merchant, J. 1999. The syntax of silence: Sluic<strong>in</strong>g, islands and identity <strong>in</strong> ellipsis. Ph.D. Diss,<br />
UCSC.
Association with traces and <strong>the</strong> copy <strong>the</strong>ory of movement<br />
In this talk I give a pr<strong>in</strong>cipled account for <strong>the</strong> observation that exclusive only must associate with a focus<br />
with<strong>in</strong> its complement (Tancredi’s (1990) Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple of Lexical Association; PLA), utiliz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> copy <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
of movement and associated work on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation of traces. Previous explanations for this fact come<br />
from <strong>the</strong> idea that traces cannot be F-marked. I argue contra Beaver and Clark (2008) that traces (lower<br />
copies of movement cha<strong>in</strong>s) can <strong>in</strong> fact be F-marked and that this is exemplified <strong>in</strong> F-mark<strong>in</strong>g conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong><br />
quantifiers which undergo QR. Instead, PLA effects arise through <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation of focus alternatives of<br />
<strong>the</strong> predicate <strong>in</strong> both <strong>the</strong> higher and lower copies of of <strong>the</strong> moved constituent. When <strong>the</strong> higher copy and<br />
lower copy are not both under <strong>the</strong> scope of <strong>the</strong> exclusive operator, we yield <strong>in</strong>compatible requirements on<br />
<strong>the</strong> variables be<strong>in</strong>g quantified over, caus<strong>in</strong>g ei<strong>the</strong>r presupposition failure or contradiction.<br />
PLA and <strong>the</strong> state of <strong>the</strong> art<br />
Michael Yoshitaka Erlew<strong>in</strong>e (MIT)<br />
Tancredi (1990) described <strong>the</strong> ungrammaticality of (1) as due to <strong>the</strong> PLA: a requirement that only associate<br />
with a constituent <strong>in</strong> its c-command doma<strong>in</strong> at S-structure. Beaver and Clark (2008) argue that this is an<br />
expected result if traces cannot be F-marked: without F-marked material <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> complement of only <strong>the</strong><br />
focus alternatives computed will be a s<strong>in</strong>gleton set and we cannot make a mean<strong>in</strong>gful assertion. In support<br />
of this view, Beaver and Clark note that “by def<strong>in</strong>ition, extraction gaps cannot be prosodically prom<strong>in</strong>ent”<br />
(Beaver and Clark, 2008, 172).<br />
(1) * [Which boy]i does John only like ti? (Tancredi, 1990)<br />
Intended: ‘Which boy x is such that John only likes [x]F ?’<br />
(2) ✓ Which boy is such thati John only likes [himi]F ?<br />
Example (2) shows that a bound variable, however, can <strong>in</strong>deed carry F-mark<strong>in</strong>g and give us <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tended<br />
read<strong>in</strong>g. This contrast between unpronounced traces and bound variables lends credence to this hypo<strong>the</strong>sis.<br />
F-mark<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> lower position: evidence from QR<br />
Aoun and Li (1993) noted that <strong>the</strong> PLA see<strong>ms</strong> to also affect <strong>the</strong> possible scopes of QR: (3) does not have an<br />
<strong>in</strong>verse-scope read<strong>in</strong>g due to <strong>the</strong> only and <strong>the</strong> F-mark<strong>in</strong>g on (part of) <strong>the</strong> QP. That <strong>the</strong> scope of focus-sensitive<br />
only <strong>in</strong>deed <strong>in</strong>terferes with QR can also be verified <strong>in</strong> Antecedent Conta<strong>in</strong>ed Deletion examples which must<br />
<strong>in</strong>voke QR <strong>in</strong> order to satisfy <strong>the</strong> identity requirements on ellipsis (Larson and May, 1990, a.o.). The two<br />
ellipsis resolutions <strong>in</strong> (4a) correspond to a choice of how high <strong>the</strong> quantifier is raised to—ei<strong>the</strong>r to <strong>the</strong> edge<br />
of vP1 or vP2. However, <strong>in</strong> (4b) <strong>the</strong> larger ellipsis resolution is unavailable, <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>ability of <strong>the</strong> QP<br />
to move across only to <strong>the</strong> edge of vP1.<br />
(3) Someone only loves [QP every [boy]F <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> room]. (Aoun and Li, 1993)<br />
✓ someone > every boy, *every boy > someone<br />
(4) a. John [vP1 wanted to [vP2 read [QP every book that Mary did . ✓ “want to read,” ✓ “read”<br />
b. John [vP1 wanted to only [vP2 read [QP every book that [M]F did . *“want to read,” ✓ “read”<br />
As a covert movement operation, QR has been analyzed as movement with pronunciation of <strong>the</strong> foot of <strong>the</strong><br />
cha<strong>in</strong>. Examples such as (3) and (4b) <strong>the</strong>n arguably realize F-mark<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> lower position, correspond<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to a trace position of an overt movement cha<strong>in</strong>. When <strong>the</strong> full paradigm of <strong>the</strong> PLA <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g its effect on<br />
QR is considered, its explanation as an <strong>in</strong>ability to realize F-mark<strong>in</strong>g on traces becomes untenable.<br />
Solution: F-mark<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> both higher and lower copies via <strong>the</strong> copy <strong>the</strong>ory of movement<br />
Under <strong>the</strong> copy <strong>the</strong>ory of movement, movement does not leave “traces” but <strong>in</strong>stead leaves full, lower copies.<br />
The lower copy is <strong>the</strong>n converted <strong>in</strong>to a def<strong>in</strong>ite description (with <strong>the</strong> restriction that it be equal to <strong>the</strong> variable<br />
<strong>in</strong> question) through a process of Trace Conversion (TC) (Fox, 2002; Rullmann and Beck, 1998).<br />
(5) “John read many books.” QR: [many books] λxi John read [many books]i<br />
TC: [many books] λx John read [<strong>the</strong> book x]<br />
F-mark<strong>in</strong>g itself is simply a syntactic feature on constituents (Jackendoff, 1972), and thus when a constituent
conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g F-mark<strong>in</strong>g moves, <strong>the</strong> F-mark<strong>in</strong>g is reta<strong>in</strong>ed on both copies. This triggers <strong>the</strong> generation of<br />
focus alternatives <strong>in</strong> both positions. If this movement happens with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> scope of only (Case I), we yield a<br />
mean<strong>in</strong>gful assertion by elim<strong>in</strong>ation of self-contradictory alternatives when evaluat<strong>in</strong>g only. However, this<br />
elim<strong>in</strong>ation of contradictory alternatives does not occur when <strong>the</strong> movement is out of <strong>the</strong> scope of only and<br />
we yield fatal presupposition failure (Case II).<br />
Case I (XP conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g F-mark<strong>in</strong>g moves with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> scope of only):<br />
“Every boy” QRs to <strong>the</strong> edge of vP, with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> scope of only, and <strong>the</strong> lower copy undergoes TC (a). There are<br />
now two F-marked boys <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> structure, and <strong>the</strong>y each <strong>in</strong>troduce <strong>the</strong> alternatives {boy, girl}. Compute �vP�f po<strong>in</strong>twise, result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> four alternatives (b). (Box <strong>in</strong>dicates prejacent.) Elim<strong>in</strong>ate alternatives which produce<br />
logical contradictions (strikeouts <strong>in</strong> b). Compute only as normal: assert<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> conjunction of negations of<br />
alternatives which are not entailed by <strong>the</strong> prejacent. The result<strong>in</strong>g assertion (c) is well-formed.<br />
(3a) a. TC: Someone λy . only [vP [every [boy]F ] λx . y loves [<strong>the</strong> [boy]F x] ]<br />
b. �vP�f { }<br />
=<br />
[every boy] λx . y loves [<strong>the</strong> boy x] , [every boy] λx . y loves [<strong>the</strong> girl x],<br />
[every girl] λx . y loves [<strong>the</strong> boy x], [every girl] λx . y loves [<strong>the</strong> girl x]<br />
c. Assert: <strong>the</strong>re exists a person y for which it is not <strong>the</strong> case that y loves every girl. �<br />
Case II (XP conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g F-mark<strong>in</strong>g moves out of <strong>the</strong> scope of only):<br />
“Every boy” QRs out above only, and <strong>the</strong> lower copy undergoes TC (a). Only <strong>the</strong> lower copy is with<strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> vP, so <strong>the</strong>re are two alternatives computed at vP (b). The exclusive assertion <strong>the</strong>n makes reference to<br />
<strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite description “<strong>the</strong> girl x” (c). The higher boy will trigger alternatives, but <strong>the</strong> assertion simply<br />
asserts <strong>the</strong> ord<strong>in</strong>ary semantic value of <strong>the</strong> root, mean<strong>in</strong>g we will quantify over “every boy x.” The complete<br />
computation (d) attempts to compute <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite description “<strong>the</strong> girl x” for “every boy x,” necessarily<br />
result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> presupposition failure for every <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> quantification!<br />
(3b) a. TC: [every [boy]F ] λx . someone λy . only [vP y loves [<strong>the</strong> [boy]F x] ]<br />
b. �vP� f = { y loves [<strong>the</strong> boy x] , y loves [<strong>the</strong> girl x] }<br />
c. �only vP� = ¬ y loves [<strong>the</strong> girl x]<br />
d. Assert: for every boy x, <strong>the</strong>re exists y, such that it is not <strong>the</strong> case that y loves [<strong>the</strong> girl x] �<br />
The contrast between traces and bound variables<br />
If <strong>the</strong> PLA is not due to a simple lack of F-mark<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> complement of only, we lose <strong>the</strong> trivial<br />
explanation for <strong>the</strong> contrast <strong>in</strong> (1–2). However, <strong>the</strong> contrast above (Case I–II) crucially arises due to <strong>the</strong><br />
presuppositions <strong>in</strong>troduced by <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ite description <strong>in</strong>terpretation of lower copies via TC. Bound variables,<br />
however, are simple variables and thus can host F-mark<strong>in</strong>g without <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g conflict<strong>in</strong>g presuppositions.<br />
(6) No boy is such thati John only likes [himi]F = [no boy](λx.only John likes [x]F ) �<br />
Prediction: <strong>the</strong> PLA does not affect F-marked quantificational determ<strong>in</strong>ers<br />
As TC reta<strong>in</strong>s all of <strong>the</strong> predicative restriction of a quantifier but replaces <strong>the</strong> determ<strong>in</strong>er with ι, F-mark<strong>in</strong>g<br />
on <strong>the</strong> determ<strong>in</strong>ers <strong>the</strong><strong>ms</strong>elves are predicted to be immune to <strong>the</strong> PLA. As alternatives are not <strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> two copies of <strong>the</strong> predicate, we avoid <strong>the</strong> issues <strong>in</strong> Case II above. This prediction is borne out.<br />
(3 ′ ) Someone only loves [ [most]F boys]. ✓ someone > most boys, ✓ most boys > someone<br />
Summary and implications<br />
The novel proposal presented here gives a unified explanation for PLA effects on both overt and covert<br />
movement, <strong>in</strong> a manner compatible with our recent, <strong>in</strong>dependently-motivated understand<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> copy <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
of movement. The dist<strong>in</strong>ction drawn here between bound variables and traces highlights <strong>the</strong> importance<br />
of our semantic denotations for “variables,” particularly as <strong>the</strong> lack of focus-islands has been used as an<br />
argument for non-movement analyses of wh-<strong>in</strong>-situ (Aoun and Li, 1993).
Peng Zhou, Stephen Cra<strong>in</strong> & Likan Zhan (Macquarie)<br />
Children’s pragmatic use of prosody <strong>in</strong> sentence process<strong>in</strong>g<br />
This study exam<strong>in</strong>ed 4-year-old Mandar<strong>in</strong>-speak<strong>in</strong>g children’s sensitivity to prosodic cues <strong>in</strong><br />
resolv<strong>in</strong>g speech act ambiguities, us<strong>in</strong>g eye-movement record<strong>in</strong>gs. Most previous on-l<strong>in</strong>e<br />
studies have focused on children’s use of prosody <strong>in</strong> resolv<strong>in</strong>g structural ambiguities and<br />
have found that, although children are able to use prosodic <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> on-l<strong>in</strong>e sentence<br />
process<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong>y use such <strong>in</strong>formation less effectively than adults. The present study takes<br />
advantage of special properties of Mandar<strong>in</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese to <strong>in</strong>vestigate <strong>the</strong> role of prosody <strong>in</strong><br />
children’s on-l<strong>in</strong>e process<strong>in</strong>g of ambiguities <strong>in</strong> which prosody serves to signal <strong>the</strong><br />
illocutionary mean<strong>in</strong>g of an utterance (i.e., whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> speaker is ask<strong>in</strong>g a question or<br />
mak<strong>in</strong>g a statement). Negative sentences with a wh-word like (1) are ambiguous <strong>in</strong> Mandar<strong>in</strong><br />
Ch<strong>in</strong>se. This sentence can ei<strong>the</strong>r be used to pose a question, as <strong>in</strong> (1a), or to make a statement,<br />
as <strong>in</strong> (1b). Prosodic cues are used to dist<strong>in</strong>guish between <strong>the</strong>se two speech acts. Ris<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>tonation on <strong>the</strong> wh-phrase shenme shuiguo ‘what fruit’ <strong>in</strong>dicates <strong>the</strong> question read<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
whereas level <strong>in</strong>tonation on <strong>the</strong> same wh-phrase signals <strong>the</strong> statement read<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
(1) Yuehan meiyou zhai shenme shuiguo<br />
John not pick what fruit<br />
a. What fruit did John not pick? (ris<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tonation on <strong>the</strong> wh-phrase)<br />
b. John didn’t pick any fruit. (level <strong>in</strong>tonation on <strong>the</strong> wh-phrase)<br />
Thirty-four monol<strong>in</strong>gual Mandar<strong>in</strong>-speak<strong>in</strong>g children (mean age 4;8, range 4;1 to 5; 5) and 30<br />
Mandar<strong>in</strong>-speak<strong>in</strong>g adults (mean age 25, range 23 to 26) were tested us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> visual world<br />
paradigm. Participants were presented with a spoken sentence (e.g., (1)) while view<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
picture (e.g., Fig.1.). Two prosodic versions of each target sentence were presented, one with<br />
ris<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tonation on <strong>the</strong> wh-phrase (Question Prosody condition) and one with level<br />
<strong>in</strong>tonation on <strong>the</strong> same wh-phrase (Statement Prosody condition). Eye-movements were<br />
recorded us<strong>in</strong>g an EyeL<strong>in</strong>k 1000 eye tracker (remote function). Participants’ fixations were<br />
coded <strong>in</strong> three categories (see Fig.1.): <strong>the</strong> statement-compatible area (objects correspond<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to <strong>the</strong> statement <strong>in</strong>terpretation), <strong>the</strong> question-compatible area (objects correspond<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong><br />
question <strong>in</strong>terpretation) and <strong>the</strong> irrelevant area (objects correspond<strong>in</strong>g to nei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation). The proportion of fixations follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> onset of <strong>the</strong> subject NP (e.g.,<br />
Yuehan ‘John’) was computed <strong>in</strong> a time w<strong>in</strong>dow of 6000 <strong>ms</strong> for <strong>the</strong> two critical categories:<br />
<strong>the</strong> statement-compatible area and <strong>the</strong> question-compatible area. This 6000 <strong>ms</strong> time w<strong>in</strong>dow<br />
was broken down <strong>in</strong>to 20 segments, each with a duration of 300 <strong>ms</strong>.<br />
Figure 2 shows <strong>the</strong> proportion of fixations of adults and children <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> question-compatible<br />
area (III) across <strong>the</strong> two prosodic conditions. Figure 3 summarizes <strong>the</strong> fixation proportions <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> statement-compatible area (I). The two figures <strong>in</strong>dicate that adults and children exhibited<br />
similar eye gaze patterns <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> two critical areas <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> two prosodic conditions. Hear<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
wh-word with ris<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tonation triggered <strong>in</strong>creased looks to <strong>the</strong> question-compatible area<br />
(Fig.2.) and hear<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> wh-word with level <strong>in</strong>tonation triggered <strong>in</strong>creased looks to <strong>the</strong><br />
statement-compatible area (Fig.3.). This prosodic effect found <strong>in</strong> children was as robust as it<br />
was <strong>in</strong> adults. The patterns were supported by fur<strong>the</strong>r statistical modell<strong>in</strong>g (mixed-effects<br />
logistic regression models). This f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g suggests that children are as sensitive as adults <strong>in</strong><br />
us<strong>in</strong>g prosody <strong>in</strong> on-l<strong>in</strong>e sentence process<strong>in</strong>g, when prosody is used to resolve a pragmatic<br />
ambiguity. Children are as good as adults <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> pragmatic use of prosody <strong>in</strong> on-l<strong>in</strong>e sentence<br />
process<strong>in</strong>g.
Fig.1. Example of <strong>in</strong>terest areas<br />
Fig.2. Average fixation proportions over time <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> question-compatible area (III) <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> two prosodic conditions, adults (left) and children (right)<br />
Fig.3. Average fixation proportions over time <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> statement-compatible area (I) <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> two prosodic conditions, adults (left) and children (right)