scholarly journals Reflexive anaphors and association with focus

2015 ◽  
pp. 376
Author(s):  
Giorgos Spathas

This paper investigates the behavior of the reflexive anaphor herself in English in conditions of narrow focus and argues in favor of (i) a theory of focus that is based around the notion of Current Question, and (ii) a theory of association with focus that assumes that some, but not all, focus associating operators exhibit conventional association; i.e. some, but not all, focus associating operators have lexical semantics that directly encode association with focus. The argument is based on the independently motivated observation that there exist asymmetries with regard to disjoint reference effects between subject and object wh-questions.

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 376
Author(s):  
Giorgos Spathas

This paper investigates the behavior of the reflexive anaphor herself in English in conditions of narrow focus and argues in favor of (i) a theory of focus that is based around the notion of Current Question, and (ii) a theory of association with focus that assumes that some, but not all, focus associating operators exhibit conventional association; i.e. some, but not all, focus associating operators have lexical semantics that directly encode association with focus. The argument is based on the independently motivated observation that there exist asymmetries with regard to disjoint reference effects between subject and object wh-questions.


2014 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 129-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iris Strangmann ◽  
Anneke Slomp ◽  
Angeliek van Hout

While Dutch welke ‘which’-questions are structurally ambiguous, number agreement cues can disambiguate them. Despite such agreement cues, children misinterpret object questions as subject questions (Metz et al. 2010, 2012; Schouwenaars et al. 2014). We investigated if adding another cue, specifically, topicality in a discourse context, helps the interpretation of which-questions in two groups of Dutch children (5;5, n = 15 and 8;5, n = 21). Using a referent-selection task, we manipulated number on the verb and postverbal NP to create unambiguous wh-questions. Moreover, the questions were preceded by a discourse which established a topic, relating either to the wh-referent or the postverbal NP referent. Nevertheless, both 5- and 8-year-olds misinterpreted object questions as subject questions, ignoring the number and topicality cues to resolve the (local) ambiguity of which-questions. Our results confirm the effect of a subject-first bias in children’s interpretation of wh-questions. We conclude that topicality, in combination with number agreement, is not strong enough to overrule this subject-first bias.


Infancy ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Seidl ◽  
George Hollich ◽  
Peter W. Jusczyk

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 271
Author(s):  
Giorgos Spathas

The possessive marker <em>own</em> exhibits a complicated behavior that gives rise to a wide range of subtle meaning differences. Accordingly, the theoretical literature has proposed a number of different characterizations of this element. This paper uses (primarily) data from association with focus to disentangle the various effects that <em>own</em> gives rise to and argue that there are at least two distinct homophonous items; <em>own<sub>R</sub></em>, a reflexivizer that operates on a syntactically derived predicate, and <em>own<sub>Poss</sub></em>, a marker of strong/ inalienable possession. We provide a compositional analysis of examples with <em>own<sub>R</sub></em> that derives its distribution without the need to any item-specific principle of Binding Theory; obligatory reflexivization follows from the lexical semantics of <em>own<sub>R</sub></em>, and locality restrictions follow from independent restrictions on the formation of derived predicates in the syntax. We, thus, provide evidence for (i) the dissociation of reflexivization and locality, and (ii) the formation of complex predicates in the syntax.


2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARIA TERESA GUASTI ◽  
CHIARA BRANCHINI ◽  
FABRIZIO AROSIO

ABSTRACTWe investigate the production of subject and object who- and which-questions in the Italian of 4- to 5-year-olds and report a subject/object asymmetry observed in other studies. We argue that this asymmetry stems from interference of the object copy in the AGREE relation between AgrS and the subject in the Spec of the verb phrase. We show that different avoidance strategies are attempted by the child to get around this interference, all boiling down to a double checking of agreement: AGREE and Spec-Head. Then, we evaluate our approach from a cross-linguistic perspective and offer an account of the differences observed across early languages. Because our account seems to call both for a grammatical and a processing explanation, we end with a critical discussion of this dichotomy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Naama Friedmann ◽  
Adriana Belletti ◽  
Luigi Rizzi

We suggest here a Growing Trees approach for the description of the acquisition of various syntactic structures in Hebrew, based on the main results reported in Friedmann and Reznick (this volume) and on our own research on a corpus of natural productions. The heart of our account is that stages of acquisition follow the geometry of the syntactic tree, along the lines of the cartographic analysis of the clause, with early stages of acquisition corresponding to small portions of the adult syntactic tree, which keeps growing with the growth of the child. The lower parts of the tree are acquired first, and higher parts are acquired later. We propose three stages of acquisition connected to the development of functional layers of the syntactic tree. In the first stage, the IP is acquired, including the lexical and inflectional layers. This allows for the appearance of A-movement structures, including SV/VS alternations with unaccusative verbs, alongside SV sentences with unergative/transitive verbs. The second stage involves the acquisition of the lower part of the left periphery, up to QP, which allows for the acquisition of subject and object Wh questions, some adjunct questions, yes/no questions, and sentence-initial adverbs. In the third stage, the rich structure of the left periphery is completely acquired, including the higher CP field. This is the stage in which sentential embedding (of finite declarative and interrogative clauses), subject and object relative clauses, why questions, and topicalization appear. A further, different type of stage, which occurs on the already-grown tree and which is independent of structure building, is the acquisition of intervention configurations, allowing for the mastery of structures involving movement of a lexically-restricted object across an intervening lexically-restricted subject. The paper illustrates the fruitful dialogue between the science of syntax acquisition and the cartography of syntactic structures.


MANUSYA ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 95-114
Author(s):  
Kingkarn Thepkanjana ◽  
Satoshi Uehara

The fact that a lexical item has semantic variations when combined with other linguistic elements is a central issue in lexical semantics. A number of researchers claim that a lexical item has one basic meaning, and that other extended meanings are triggered in context by a process whereby the semantic structure of the lexical item is adjusted in certain details so that it is semantically compatible with its neighboring lexical items. This paper aims to examine how this process actually works as it applies to a transitive verb occurring with subject and object arguments. A study of the Thai transitive verb HAK "break" and its corresponding verb ORU in Japanese is presented. Arguably, all seemingly discrete meanings of HAK are interrelated and so are those of ORU. The basic meaning of each verb corresponds to the most concrete event and is the most cognitively salient. It consists of a number of “facets”, which represent different physical resulting states of an entity undergoing an action denoted by either HAK or ORU. Two mechanisms are found to derive the extended meanings. First, only some facets of HAK and ORU are promoted. Second, HAK and ORU are figuratively interpreted. The other objective of this study is to show semantic differences between HAK and ORU. It is demonstrated in this paper that so-called "corresponding” words in different languages, especially verbs, hardly have exactly the same meaning.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document