Asymmetric anaphoric dependencies determine available readings for VP-ellipsis

Dalrymple et al. (1991) was a landmark contribution to the theory of ellipsis. In addition to providing an elegant semantic account of the interaction between ellipsis and quantification, it demonstrates how strict and sloppy readings can be generated without having to posit an ambiguity between bound and free pronouns in antecedent clauses. A weakness of the theory, however, is its lack of representational sensitivity to choice of referential form: the fact that pronouns and names are represented the same way causes the account to overgenerate sloppy readings in some cases. In this chapter, Kehler discusses a set of examples that provide adequacy criteria for theories of ellipsis with respect to their treatment of anaphoric dependencies. These cases reveal that a more generalized notion of dependency needs to be represented beyond the more limited notion captured by syntactic binding relations, including dependencies that cross clause boundaries and that involve eventualities. A provisional account is offered that captures these cases.

Discourse and Form Constraints on Licensing Object-First Sentences in German

In German, the subject usually precedes the object (SO order), but, under certain discourse conditions, the object is allowed to precede the subject (OS order). This paper focuses on main clauses in which either the subject or a discourse-given object occurs in clause-initial position. Two acceptability experiments show that OS sentences with a given object are generally acceptable, but the precise degree of acceptability varies both with the object‘s referential form (demonstrative objects leading to higher acceptability than other types of objects) and with formal properties of the subject (pronominal subjects leading to higher acceptability than non-pronominal subjects). For SO sentences, acceptability was reduced when the object was a d-pronoun, which contrasts with the high acceptability of OS sentences with a d-pronoun object. This finding was explored in a third acceptability experiment comparing d-pronouns in subject and object function. This experiment provides evidence that a reduction in acceptability due to a prescriptive bias against d-pronouns is suspended when the d-pronoun occurs as object in the prefield. We discuss the experimental results with respect to theories of German clause structure that claim that OS sentences with different information-structural properties are derived by different types of movement.

Objects in the German prefield

From the perspective of language production, this chapter discusses the question of whether to move the subject or the object to the clause-initial position in a German Verb Second clause. A review of experimental investigations of language production shows that speakers of German tend to order arguments in such a way that the most accessible argument comes first, with accessibility defined in terms like animacy (‘animate before inanimate’) and discourse status (e.g. ‘given before new’). Speakers of German thus obey the same ordering principles that have been found to be at work in English and other languages. Despite the relative free word order of German, speakers rarely produce sentences with object-before-subject word order in experimental investigations. Instead, they behave like speakers of English and mostly use passivization in order to bring the underlying object argument in front of the underlying subject argument when the object is more accessible than the subject. Corpus data, however, show that object-initial clauses are not so infrequent after all. The second part of the chapter, therefore, discusses new findings concerning the discourse conditions that favour the production of object-initial clauses. These findings indicate, among other things, that the clausal position of an object is affected not only by its referent’s discourse status but also by its referential form. Objects occur in clause-initial position most frequently when referring to a given referent in the form of a demonstrative pronoun or NP.

Effects of grammatical roles and topicality on Vietnamese referential form production

We conducted two studies on the use of null and overt pronouns and noun phrases in Vietnamese, with a focus on referents’ grammatical roles, grammatical parallelism and topicality. Vietnamese overt pronouns differ from English-type languages as they also function as kin terms. The first study investigated narratives and finds that referential form choice is influenced by the grammatical role and grammatical position of the antecedent: When the subject of the current clause refers to the subject of the preceding clause (subject parallelism), we find a high rate of (null and overt) pronouns. Lack of parallelism triggers mostly NPs. When the object of the current clause refers to the object of the preceding clause (object parallelism), we also find more pronouns than in non-parallel cases. Interestingly, null pronouns only occur in parallel cases. Crucially, we find no clear differences in the distribution of null vs. overt pronouns, suggesting that grammatical roles and parallelism have the same effects on both pronoun types. Using passivization to manipulate topicality, Experiment 2 further investigated the null vs. overt pronoun choice and found that pronouns are strongly preferred for topicalized subjects in passives and that null pronouns exhibit a stronger sensitivity to topicality than overt pronouns. To our knowledge, these experiments are the first experimental investigation of a kin-term-based pronoun system.

Discourse attention during utterance planning affects referential form choice

An unstudied source of linguistic variation is the use of discourse-appropriate language. Sometimes individuals use linguistic devices (anaphors, connectors) to connect utterances to the discourse context, and sometimes not. We asked how this variation is related to utterance planning, using eyetracking with a narrative production task. Participants saw picture pairs depicting two events. They heard a description of the first event (Context picture), then added to the story by describing the second event (Target picture). We found that one group of participants produced utterances that connected with the discourse context (Context-Users), using pronouns/zeros and connectors (and/then) as appropriate, while another group consistently used definite NP descriptions and virtually no connectors (Context-Ignorers). Eyetracking measures reflected utterance planning within a discourse context: all participants shifted their attention from the Context picture to the Target picture throughout a trial. We also observed group differences: Context-Users directed their attention in a more systematic way than Context-Ignorers. At trial onset, Context-Users looked more at the Context picture than Context-Ignorers. Right before speaking, they looked more at the Target picture than Context-Ignorers. The Context-Users also had shorter latency to begin speaking. This study provides a first step toward characterizing individual differences in terms of utterance planning.