prepositional object
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

48
(FIVE YEARS 19)

H-INDEX

7
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2022 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eri Nakagawa ◽  
Takahiko Koike ◽  
Motofumi Sumiya ◽  
Koji Shimada ◽  
Kai Makita ◽  
...  

Japanese English learners have difficulty speaking Double Object (DO; give B A) than Prepositional Object (PO; give A to B) structures which neural underpinning is unknown. In speaking, syntactic and phonological processing follow semantic encoding, conversion of non-verbal mental representation into a structure suitable for expression. To test whether DO difficulty lies in linguistic or prelinguistic process, we conducted functional magnetic resonance imaging. Thirty participants described cartoons using DO or PO, or simply named them. Greater reaction times and error rates indicated DO difficulty. DO compared with PO showed parieto-frontal activation including left inferior frontal gyrus, reflecting linguistic process. Psychological priming in PO produced immediately after DO and vice versa compared to after control, indicated shared process between PO and DO. Cross-structural neural repetition suppression was observed in occipito-parietal regions, overlapping the linguistic system in pre-SMA. Thus DO and PO share prelinguistic process, whereas linguistic process imposes overload in DO.


2021 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 43-56
Author(s):  
Wilken Engelbrecht ◽  
Kateřina Křížová

For foreign students, the prepositional object is among the most problematic syntactic features of the Dutch language, as its form presents strong similarities with the adverbial clause, but it has an object function. In some cases it is very difficult to even decide whether the prepositional phrase has an adverbial function or is an object comparable with the direct object. In this paper the Dutch prepositional object is compared with similar constructions in the Czech language. Furthermore, the function of the preposition and its categorisation are briefly discussed. The paper ends with some criteria for Czech-speaking students to recognize a prepositional object as such.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhenguang Garry Cai ◽  
Nan Zhao ◽  
Martin John Pickering

People sometimes interpret implausible sentences non-literally, for example treating The mother gave the candle the daughter as meaning the daughter receiving the candle. But how do they do so? We contrasted a nonliteral syntactic analysis account, according to which people compute a syntactic analysis appropriate for this nonliteral meaning, with a nonliteral semantic analysis account, according to which they arrive at this meaning via purely semantic analysis. The nonliteral syntactic but not semantic reanalysis account postulates that people consider not only a literal-but-implausible double-object (DO) analysis in comprehending The mother gave the candle the daughter, but also a nonliteral-but-plausible prepositional-object (PO) analysis (i.e., including to before the daughter). In three structural priming experiments, participants heard a plausible or implausible DO or PO prime sentence. They then answered a comprehension question first or described a picture of a dative event first. In line with the nonliteral syntactic analysis account, priming was reduced following implausible than plausible sentences and following nonliterally than literally-interpreted implausible sentences. We argue that comprehenders project a plausible analysis before they have encountered the whole sentence (e.g., a PO analysis at the candle for The mother gave the candle the daughter) and that this analysis is often maintained even if it turns to be incorrect.


Author(s):  
Grant Armstrong

The main goal of this paper is to provide a solution to a puzzle regarding a constraint on multiple external possession relations in Spanish prepositional double object verbs like poner ‘put.’ When both the direct object and prepositional object are body parts with different external possessors, the subject must be the possessor of the direct object body part and a dative clitic the possessor the prepositional object body part, not the other way around. Assuming that possessor movement to theta positions is what gives rise to external possession, I claim that the unacceptable interpretation is due to a locality violation that is incurred when an external possession relation is established between a subject and prepositional object body part that crosses over another external possession relation between a dative clitic and direct object body part.


2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110449
Author(s):  
Keshu Xiang ◽  
Hui Chang ◽  
Lu Sun

There is no consensus on whether syntactic representation is independent of semantic representation in Mandarin. In four experiments, we adopted the syntactic priming paradigm to investigate the independence of syntactic representation in Mandarin. Experiments 1 and 2 investigated the priming effects of double object construction (DO) and prepositional object construction (PO) with the ditransitive verb being repeated across the prime and target. Experiment 1 showed two-way priming effects of DO and PO. Experiment 2 showed that the syntactic priming effects persisted regardless of whether the semantic features (animacy of the Theme) matched across the prime and target or not. Furthermore, such effects persisted in Experiments 3 and 4 where the ditransitive verb across the prime and target was not repeated. Taken together, these findings provide evidence that syntactic/semantic independence is universal and favored over the traditional Chinese grammar account, which claims that the syntactic representation of Mandarin is not independent of the semantic representation.


Author(s):  
Merel Muylle ◽  
Sarah Bernolet ◽  
Robert J. Hartsuiker

Abstract We investigated L1 and L2 frequency effects in the sharing of syntax across languages (reflected in cross-linguistic structural priming) using an artificial language (AL) paradigm. Ninety-six Dutch speakers learned an AL with either a prepositional-object (PO) dative bias (PO datives appeared three times as often as double-object [DO] datives) or a DO dative bias (DOs appeared three times as often as POs). Priming was assessed from the AL to Dutch (a strongly PO-biased language). There was weak immediate priming for DOs, but not for POs in both bias conditions. This suggests that L1, but not AL, frequency influenced immediate priming. Furthermore, the DO bias group produced 10% more DOs in Dutch than the PO bias group, showing that cumulative priming was influenced by AL frequency. We discuss the different effects of L1 and AL frequency on cross-linguistic structural priming in terms of lexicalist and implicit learning accounts.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eri Nakagawa ◽  
Takahiko Koike ◽  
Motofumi Sumiya ◽  
Koji Shimada ◽  
Kai Makita ◽  
...  

Japanese English learners have difficulty speaking Double Object (DO; give B A) than Prepositional Object (PO; give A to B) structures which neural underpinning is unknown. In speaking, syntactic and phonological processing follow semantic encoding, conversion of non-verbal mental representation into a structure suitable for expression. To test whether DO difficulty lies in linguistic or prelinguistic process, we conducted functional magnetic resonance imaging. Thirty participants described cartoons using DO or PO, or simply named them. Greater reaction times and error rates indicated DO difficulty. DO compared with PO showed parieto-frontal activation including left inferior frontal gyrus, reflecting linguistic process. Psychological priming in PO produced immediately after DO and vice versa compared to after control, indicated shared process between PO and DO. Cross-structural neural repetition suppression was observed in occipito-parietal regions, overlapping the linguistic system in pre-SMA. Thus DO and PO share prelinguistic process, whereas linguistic process imposes overload in DO.


Nordlyd ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-91
Author(s):  
Lutz Gunkel ◽  
Jutta Hartmann

This paper analyses the variation we find in the realization of finite clausal complements in the position of prepositional objects in a set of Germanic languages. The Germanic languages differ with respect to whether prepositions can directly select a clause (North Germanic) or not and instead need a prepositional proform (Continental West Germanic). Within the Continental West Germanic languages, we find further differences with respect to the constituent structures. We propose that German strong vs. weak prepositional proforms (e.g. drauf vs. darauf) differ with respect to their syntax, while this is not the case for the Dutch forms (ervan vs. daarvan). What the Germanic languages under consideration share is that the prepositional element can be covert, except in English. English shows only limited evidence for the presence of P with finite clauses in the position of prepositional objects generally, but only with a selected set of verbs. This investigation is a first step towards a broader study of the nature of clauses in prepositional object positions and the implications for the syntax of clausal complementation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-294
Author(s):  
Willy Vandeweghe

Abstract New insights on the prepositional objectAn influential article by Hans Broekhuis in Nederlandse Taalkunde 9 (2004) treated PP complements (type He thought of her all day) in Dutch. It contained sharp observations, intriguing hypotheses and a somewhat puzzling classification of the verbs allowing these complements. It provoked a lively discussion, on matters such as the number of possible PP complements in one sentence, the value of distinctive criteria such as an isolation test with en doet dat, the functional status of the preposition. Broekhuis’ generative-style syntactic reasoning at times clashed with approaches inspired by form/content analysis, valency theory and constructional grammar. In all, the original contribution to this journal and the subsequent discussion brought new and interesting insights in this traditionally hard-to-deal-with syntactic category.


2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-279
Author(s):  
Ina Schermer-Vermeer

Abstract Reconciling with the prepositional object. On the influence of Vandeweghe (2011)In this paper I argue for the positive aspects of the claim in Vandeweghe (2011) that there are two types of prepositional object: a primary and a secondary type, which have a different relationship to the predicate. The most discussed consequence of this theory is that it allows a simple sentence to contain two prepositional objects provided that they have a different hierarchical status. Here I focus on sentences with only one possible secondary prepositional object and no other objects. These sentences show that a fixed preposition is not a sufficient condition for a PP to be considered a secondary prepositional object; the preposition should also be used in a non-literal, abstract way. When it is difficult to decide whether this is the case, other semantic properties have to be taken into account, such as the reciprocal character of the predicate.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document