scholarly journals OLD ENGLISH DERIVED ORDERS AT THE SYNTAX-INFORMATION STRUCTURE INTERFACE

2020 ◽  
pp. 23-30
Author(s):  
Yana CHANKOVA
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Semantic Interpretation ◽  
Left Periphery ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Syntactic Information ◽  
Information Packaging ◽  
Canonical Order ◽  
Constituent Order ◽  
Semantic Properties

The present paper reports some findings from the author’s research on a particular non-canonical order, derived by Scrambling and attested with double object constructions with one non-finite verb in The York-TorontoHelsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (2003). The account of Scrambling is launched in a Minimalist syntactic framework but invokes information-structural and semantic factors in an attempt to assess the extent to which the general linearization principles can be affected by such factors. The paper provides convergent support to the claim that Scrambling is an optional displacement operation raising internal Arguments and Adjuncts out of their source positions into phrasallyadjoined targets in the left periphery of vP. Assuming that Scrambling has an effect on the way constituent order correlates with discourse roles, the following paper argues that Scrambling in Old English occurs on the Syntax-Information Structure Interface, and, by corollary that it can be thought of as a type of information packaging syntactic device. Though syntactically optional, the studied Syntax-Information Structure interactions are semantically effective, i.e. they have a bearing on semantic interpretation and can best be described as interface interactions, whereby the scrambled modified orders are licensed based on their syntactic, information structural and semantic properties.

scholarly journals Information Structure

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enoch Aboh
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Left Periphery ◽  
Clause Structure ◽  
Linguistic Data ◽  
Structure Sensitive ◽  
Information Packaging ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Formal Features

This chapter discusses the cartographic approach to clause structure according to which information structure directly relates to syntactic heads that project within the clausal left periphery. This view is supported by data from languages in which information-structure-sensitive notions (e.g. topic, focus) are encoded by means of discourse markers that trigger various constituent displacement rules. Such empirical facts are compatible with the cartographic view in which lexical choices condition information packaging and clause structure. Put together, the cross-linguistic data presented in this chapter indicate that [FOCUS], [TOPIC], and [INTERROGATIVE] represent formal features that are properties of lexical elements and may sometimes trigger generalized-piping and snowballing movement.

scholarly journals The Role of Prosodic Breaks and Pitch Accents in Grouping Words during On-line Sentence Processing

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 2447-2467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Bögels ◽  
Herbert Schriefers ◽  
Wietske Vonk ◽  
Dorothee J. Chwilla
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Pitch Accent ◽  
Semantic Interpretation ◽  
N400 Effect ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
On Line ◽  
Group Words ◽  
Pitch Accents

The present study addresses the question whether accentuation and prosodic phrasing can have a similar function, namely, to group words in a sentence together. Participants listened to locally ambiguous sentences containing object- and subject-control verbs while ERPs were measured. In Experiment 1, these sentences contained a prosodic break, which can create a certain syntactic grouping of words, or no prosodic break. At the disambiguation, an N400 effect occurred when the disambiguation was in conflict with the syntactic grouping created by the break. We found a similar N400 effect without the break, indicating that the break did not strengthen an already existing preference. This pattern held for both object- and subject-control items. In Experiment 2, the same sentences contained a break and a pitch accent on the noun following the break. We argue that the pitch accent indicates a broad focus covering two words [see Gussenhoven, C. On the limits of focus projection in English. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives. Cambridge: University Press, 1999], thus grouping these words together. For object-control items, this was semantically possible, which led to a “good-enough” interpretation of the sentence. Therefore, both sentences were interpreted equally well and the N400 effect found in Experiment 1 was absent. In contrast, for subject-control items, a corresponding grouping of the words was impossible, both semantically and syntactically, leading to processing difficulty in the form of an N400 effect and a late positivity. In conclusion, accentuation can group words together on the level of information structure, leading to either a semantically “good-enough” interpretation or a processing problem when such a semantic interpretation is not possible.

scholarly journals Second Language Acquisition of the English Dative Alternation by Native Speakers of Arabic

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-88
Author(s):  
Anwar S. Aljadani
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Dative Alternation ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Semantic Properties

Abstract This paper reports on an experimental study that investigates the influence of the disparity between English and Arabic on second language acquisition, namely the phenomenon of the acquisition of the English dative alternation by Arab learners. The disallowance of certain Arabic verbs to occur in the double object dative structure causes difficulty for Arab learners to acquire English as far as the acquisition of the dative alternation is concerned. The experiment is devised to examine whether Arab learners are sensitive to syntactic and semantic properties associated with the English dative alternation. The experiment involved picture tasks with two structures: the prepositional dative structure and the double object dative structure. Overall, the results of the experiment show that the L2 learners failed to acquire the double object dative structure which does not exist in their L1. Based on these results, it is argued that L1 has an important effect on the acquisition of L2.

scholarly journals Pragmatische aspecten van de datiefalternering in het Nederlands

1970 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 87-107
Author(s):  
Timothy Colleman
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Dative Alternation ◽  
Trivalent Verbs

The majority of Dutch trivalent verbs taking both a Patient and a Recipientargument allow for two different complementation patterns: theRecipient is either encoded as a bare NP in a double object pattern (Jefgeeft Piet een boek) or as a PP headed by aan (Jef geeft een boek aanPiet). As for the function of this variation (known as Dative Alternation),various authors have suggested semantic explanations, often basedupon the notion of affectedness. lt is clear, however, that the hypotheticalsubtle semantic differences between the two constructions may beoverridden by pragmatic factors . This paper presents the results of aninvestigation into the correlation between information structure andDative Alternation in Dutch.

scholarly journals Right-dislocation in Catalan: Its discourse function and counterparts in English

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laia Mayol
Keyword(s):  
Emotional Content ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
English Text ◽  
Corpus Study ◽  
Discourse Function ◽  
Structure Information ◽  
Information Packaging ◽  
Canonical Order ◽  
The Right ◽  
Previous Sentence

This paper presents a corpus study of right dislocation (RD) in Catalan and discusses crosslinguistic differences of information packaging between English and Catalan. The Catalan corpus consists of 93 RDs which have been coded according to three parameters: (1) the point where the entity in the right-dislocated constituent had appeared in the discourse, (2) consequences of eliminating the right-dislocated constituent and (3) consequences of restoring the canonical order. I argue that RD in Catalan is a means to structure information in a coherent way by displacing old information from the main clause. Three main types of RDs can be found: (1) RDs which activate an entity which was no longer accessible in the discourse and make it highly salient, while still marking its discourse-old status; (2) RDs which make explicit an implicit, never textually mentioned, referent and places it in a discourse-old information position. (3) RDs referring to entities mentioned in the previous sentence. Such RDs convey an additional meaning, some ‘emotional content’, having to do with the expression of opposition or emphasis. In order to analyse crosslinguistic differences, an English text and its Catalan translation have been used. The Catalan translation contained 42 instances of RD, while the English text contained none, which shows that the two languages use different strategies to encode information packaging. The Catalan translation uses RDs mostly in cases in which the English original repeats the same phrase in two consecutive utterances and in utterances which convey contrast or opposition.

Information Structure in Languages of the Caucasus

2021 ◽  
pp. 972-1002
Author(s):  
Diana Forker
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Indigenous Language ◽  
Focus Position ◽  
Major Focus ◽  
The Caucasus ◽  
Clear Preference ◽  
Sharp Difference ◽  
Frequent Use ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Constituent Order

This chapter discusses the expression of information structure in the three indigenous language families of the Caucasus with a focus on constituent order and particles. At the clause level, all three language families show a clear preference for SOV, are generally flexible, and also admit other orders. The major focus position is pre-verbal, but postverbal focus is also attested; adjacency to the verb is a violable constraint. At the phrasal level, there is a sharp difference between Northwest Caucasian, with its prenominal and postnominal modifiers alike, and Kartvelian and Nakh-Daghestanian languages, which employ postnominal modifiers only for emphasis, contrast, or focus. Languages from all three families make wide use of cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions that normally express constituent focus. Another commonality is the frequent use of enclitics and suffixes of different types for information-structuring purposes. Modal markers, interrogative markers, additive affixes, and markers with grammatical meaning are used as focus-sensitive particles and usually placed after the item they scope over or after the head of the phrase.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document