1 / 52

Object fronting

Object fronting. Helen de Hoop based on joint work with Monique Lamers. Object fronting. Object fronting in Dutch Dat weet ik zeker case that know I sure Het lijk heeft Jan verstopt animacy the corpse has Jan hidden Jan sloeg Piet word order Jan hit Piet.

geneva
Download Presentation

Object fronting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Object fronting Helen de Hoop based on joint work with Monique Lamers

  2. Object fronting • Object fronting in Dutch • Dat weet ik zeker case that know I sure • Het lijk heeft Jan verstopt animacy the corpse has Jan hidden • Jan sloeg Piet word order Jan hit Piet

  3. Overview • Distinguishability • Incremental optimization of interpretation • Evidence from ERPs • Three types of verbs • Evidence from rating studies • Evidence from a production study • A bidirectional perspective • Conclusion

  4. Distinguishability • Case can help to identify the first NP as the object Latin puer-um magister laudat boyACC teacher praises ‘The teacher praises the boy.’

  5. Distinguishability ACCUSATIVE = “part 2” Prediction: There is also a “part 1”

  6. Distinguishability part 2  part 1 ACC  subject Within the domain of language comprehension, it is well established that syntactic dependencies give rise to predictive parsing (Gibson, 1998). For example, the processing of an unambiguously identifiable object will give rise to the prediction of a subject.

  7. Distinguishability Den Zaun habe ich zerbrochen [the fence]ACC have INOM broken “The fence, I broke.”

  8. Distinguishability Den Zaun habe ich zerbrochen Distinguishability of subject and object • Case • Agreement • Prominence (animacy) • Selection * Precedence (word order)

  9. Distinguishability Die Studentin hat die Professorin geschlagen “The student hit the professor.”

  10. Distinguishability Die Studentin hat die Professorin geschlagen Distinguishability of subject and object * Case * Agreement * Prominence (animacy) * Selection • Precedence (word order)

  11. Distinguishability The holiday pleased the man The man liked the holiday

  12. Distinguishability The holiday pleased the man Distinguishability of subject and object * Case * Agreement * Prominence (animacy) • Selection • Precedence (word order)

  13. Distinguishability Case: the subject is in the nominative case, the object in the accusative Agreement: the subject agrees with the verb Prominence (animacy): the subject outranks the object in animacy Selection: Fit the selection restrictions of the verb. Precedence (word order): the subject linearly precedes the object

  14. Determining the ranking

  15. Determining the ranking

  16. Determining the ranking

  17. Determining the ranking

  18. Determining the ranking

  19. Determining the ranking

  20. The ranking of the constraints • Case, Agreement • Selection • Precedence • Prominence

  21. Incremental optimization • During sentence processing the optimal interpretation is being built up incrementally (word-by-word or constituent-by-constituent) • System of ranked constraints

  22. Incremental optimization • Optimal interpretation at time t • Jumping from one interpretation to the other • ERP studies • Lamers 2001

  23. Incremental optimization

  24. Incremental optimization

  25. Incremental optimization

  26. Incremental optimization

  27. Incremental optimization

  28. Incremental optimization

  29. Incremental optimization

  30. Evidence from ERPs

  31. Evidence from ERPs

  32. Evidence from ERPs

  33. case animacy De oude vrouw/Het oude park … verzorgde hij… De oude vrouw in de straat verzorgde hem/hij…

  34. Evidence from ERPs • De oude vrouw verzorgde hem… • Het oude park verzorgde hij… • De oude vrouw verzorgde hij… • (2) gets an OI reading at the verb (SELECTION) • (3) gets an OI reading at the pronoun (CASE) • Lamers (2001) reports similar ERP effects at the verb in (2) and at the pronoun in (3)

  35. Evidence from ERPs • De oude vrouw verzorgde hem… • Het oude park verzorgde hij… • De oude vrouw verzorgde hij… • Lamers (2001) reports similar ERP effects at the verb in (2) and at the pronoun in (3) • At the verb in (2) and at the pronoun in (3) there is a “jump” from an SI to an OI reading (thereby violating PRECEDENCE)

  36. Evidence from ERPs Identical ERP effects correspond to identical patterns of constraint violations

  37. Three types of verbs • agentive & experiencer-theme verbs Call (xAgent, yTheme) The secretary called the customer • causative psych/theme-experiencer verbs Frighten (xTheme/Stim, yExp) The secretary frightened us. • unaccusative psych verbs Please (xTheme, yExp) The secretary pleased us.

  38. Three types of verbs • agentive & experiencer-theme verbs Dat de toerist de stad zeer bewonderde… <SI> that the tourist the city a-lot admired… *Dat de stad de toerist zeer bewonderde… <OI> that the city the tourist a-lot admired…

  39. Three types of verbs • causative psych verbs Dat de stad de toerist zeer deprimeerde… <SI> that the city the tourist a-lot depressed… Dat de toerist de stad zeer deprimeerde… <OI> that the tourist the city a-lot depressed…

  40. Three types of verbs • unaccusative psych verbs Dat de stad de toerist zeer beviel… <SI> that the city the tourist a-lot pleased… Dat de toerist de stad zeer beviel… <OI> that the tourist the city a-lot pleased…

  41. Evidence from rating studies Black: Lamers (2001) Orange: Lamers (2005)

  42. Evidence from rating studies • General preference for subject-initial sentences • Strongest SI preference for agentive verbs • Highest rating of OI sentences for unaccusative psych verbs

  43. Evidence from rating studies • Where do these differences between the three types of verbs come from? Strongest SI preference for agentive verbs • Subject first • Animate first

  44. Evidence from rating studies • Psych verbs have an animate object Therefore, only one of the two constraints can be satisfied • Subject first  SI • Animate first  OI

  45. Three types of verbs But then, what is the difference between unaccusative and psych verbs? Highest rating of OI sentences for unaccusative psych verbs Production experiment (Hofmans & Lamers 2006)

  46. A production study • 30 normal participants (6 Broca aphasics) • 12 sets of three verbs with an animate & inanimate NPs (2 combinations for each set of verbs) • three conditions for each verb: -no first NP given -animate first -inanimate first depress student exam

  47. SUBJECT FIRST ANIMATE FIRST

  48. A production study • Subject First • Animate First • Conflict between these two results in a higher occurrence of passive constructions with causative psych verbs satisfying both constraints, and a higher occurrence of OI constructions satisfying Animate First with unaccusative psych verbs.

  49. A bidirectional perspective But then, what is the difference between unaccusative and psych verbs? Difference in rating can be explained in a bidirectional approach in which the hearer takes the speaker’s perspective into account.

  50. A bidirectional perspective When a speaker wants to start with the animate argument, she can use a passive construction in case of a causative psych verb (thereby satisfying Subject First as well), but not in case of an unaccusative psych verb. Thus, for unaccusative psych verbs, only an OI sentence leads to satisfaction of Animate First.

More Related