Operator-variable binding in the initial state: A cross-linguistic study of VP ellipsis structures in Chinese and English

Guo, Fu; Foley, Claire; Chien, Yew‐Hu; Chiang, Chi-Pang; Lust, Barbara

doi:10.3406/clao.1996.1490

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In section 4, we turn to a sketch of results from 86 children acquiring English which confirmed the three predictions, in turn disconfirming the alternative hypotheses. Viewed alongside results from a parallel study conducted in Chinese (Guo et al 1996) and a production study (Foley, Lust & Pactovis, 2002;Postman et al 1997), the results provide strong evidence for children's early knowledge of constrained ambiguity in VP-ellipsis and for their early UG-based competence for abstract representation at LF.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…The sloppy interpretation appears to be the default interpretation for adults in English and also in Chinese (Guo et al 1996). Interestingly, in an independent body of research, the sloppy interpretation appears to have a processing advantage over the strict interpretation (Frazier & Clifton 2000).…”

Section: The Proposal Accounts For Analogous Facts In Adult Processingmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Knowledge of Variable Binding in VP–Ellipsis: Language Acquisition Research and Theory Converge

Foley

Prado

Barbier

et al. 2003

Syntax

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we relate results from recent experimental study of young children's (3;0-7;11) comprehension of coordinate VP-ellipsis structures in English to a new theoretical proposal regarding their representation. Historically, theoretical treatments of these structures have been challenged by the nature of the ambiguity they involve, which includes both a ''sloppy'' interpretation (represented in terms of a bound variable) and a ''strict'' interpretation (represented as referential), at the same time that other interpretations are ruled out. Based on our study of language acquisition, we propose a solution capturing the ambiguity in the syntax, including two different types of operator-variable binding (local and long-distance) over a shared coordinate configuration. Pragmatic focus motivates the choice of the syntactic option for the long-distance strict interpretation. Empirical results reveal that, at all ages, (i) the sloppy interpretation is preferred, (ii) the strict interpretation is nevertheless in evidence, (iii) ungrammatical interpretations are ruled out, and (iv) choice of the strict reading is influenced by semantic/pragmatic factors. In each experimental condition, there were two sentences, one a replication with different lexical items. The design included one sentence type, not presented in Table 1 or discussed here, that included an embedded structure (e.g., Big Bird tells Ernie to jump and Scooter does too).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Section: The Proposal Accounts For Analogous Facts In Adult Processingmentioning

confidence: 98%

Knowledge of Variable Binding in VP–Ellipsis: Language Acquisition Research and Theory Converge

Foley

Prado

Barbier

et al. 2003

Syntax

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results from child language acquisition studies also support the claim that variable binding is a linguistic primitive -or is at least computationally simpler (e.g. Foley et al, 2003;Guo et al, 1996). Foley et al found in both an act-out task and a truth value judgment task that all age groups tested (3,0-7,11) had a bias towards bound variable interpretations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 57%

“…his bike, her newspaper). While Foley et al (2003) and Guo et al (1996) identify a possessed noun's alienability as a predictor of bound variable bias, previous work has also examined the influence of the possessum's animacy. Dahl & Fraurud (1996:57) suggest that a difference in animacy affects the preferred interpretation of Examples (3a) and (3b) below.…”

Section: The Influence Of Lexical Semantics and Possession Typementioning

confidence: 99%

Possession type affects resolution of possessive pronouns in English VP ellipsis

Storbeck

Kaiser

2018

Proc Ling Soc Amer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sentence “Bill washed his car, and John did, too” has two possible interpretations if the overt his refers to Bill: (i) a coreferential interpretation, in which John washed Bill’s car, or (ii) a bound variable interpretation, in which John washed his own car. What guides comprehenders’ selection of one over the other? Previous research has identified factors such as processing economy (e.g. Reuland, 2001) and lexical semantic properties of the verb and possessed noun (e.g. Foley et al., 2003; Ong & Brasoveanu, 2014). We extend research on the contribution of possession type to resolution of this type of ambiguous VP ellipsis. We hypothesize that the range of possession types found in natural language varies in the extent to which the possessum is processed as an independent discourse referent or as dependent on the discourse representation of its possessor. Moreover, we expect that such differences modulate the possessum’s availability for coreference and, therefore, affect ambiguity resolution. We conducted an experiment testing how different possession relations modulate adult L1 English speakers’ interpretational preference. Inanimate nouns favored bound variable interpretations more than animates did, supporting our hypothesis that the overt possession’s animacy and its resultant discourse status are important factors in the resolution of the elided possessive pronoun. Follow-up experiments confirmed these results and ruled out nouns’ real-world plausibility of possession as a determinant of interpretational preference. Our results suggest that animate possessions are more likely than inanimates to receive independent status in the discourse and consequently to be available for coreference when the ellipsis is interpreted.

show abstract

“…Independent evidence for both English and Chinese, in fact, has confirmed very early competence for QR, specifically when NP's Quantifier Raise in VP ellipsis structures allowing sloppy identity readings (see Foley, Nufiez del Prado, Barbier, and Lust (1992a, b, c, to appear) for English; and Guo, Foley, Chiang, Chien, and Lust (1995) for Chinese). Rather, our proposal is that it is the lexicalization of features [+ focus] of the pronominal morpheme, ta, which acts as a lexical trigger for QR, which must be learned.…”

Section: 232mentioning

confidence: 99%

Chinese pronominals in universal grammar: A study of linear precedence and command in Chinese and English children's first language acquisition

Lust

Chien

Chiang

et al. 1996

J East Asian Linguis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper concerns a particular problem raised by Mandarin Chinese pronouns, viz. they appear to obey a linear precedence constraint unlike English (e.g., Huang (1982)). This calls into question the nature of UG and how it can account for these crosslinguistic differences.In this paper, experimental analyses of children's (null and lexical) pronoun interpretation in Chinese and English argue for universal 'structure dependence' (including 'command') in the Initial State and against either a universal or a languagespecific role of 'linear precedence' alone. A linear precedence effect is developmentally achieved only in Chinese.The acquisition results provoke a revised theoretical analysis of the grammar of pronouns in Chinese and a strong form of UG. We argue that it is not necessary to propose a language-specific definition of 'command' in Chinese in order to explain the apparent linearity effects on Chinese pronouns, and it is not necessary to propose a linear precedence rule in UG. Rather, consideration of an articulated structure of Chinese NP, which is motivated by the acquisition data, explains essential differences between lexical ta pronominals and null pronominals in Chinese and accounts for linearity effects in the adult language. We propose that ta pronominals are not themselves in argument position and are not N o heads. They are not equivalent to null pronominals.Together the experimental and theoretical results support a 'strong continuity' theory of UG in which universal "principles and parameters" of UG continuously constrain the child's mapping from UG to a specific-language grammar. Language development, and the Chinese precedence effect for pronouns, lies in pragmatic/semantic features connected with the lexical realization of the specifier of a pronominal NP, not in the development of UG. tigation we are led to new insights regarding the grammar of Chinese pronominals and its relation to Universal Grammar (UG). This paper represents one component of a cross-linguistic project in which first language acquisition of English and several other languages are compared in order to investigate the nature of principles and parameters in UG. We assume the theory of UG (as summarized in (1)) to provide a model of the "Initial State" for language development (cf. Lust (to appear, in preparation)).

show abstract

Operator-variable binding in the initial state: A cross-linguistic study of VP ellipsis structures in Chinese and English

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Knowledge of Variable Binding in VP–Ellipsis: Language Acquisition Research and Theory Converge

Knowledge of Variable Binding in VP–Ellipsis: Language Acquisition Research and Theory Converge

Possession type affects resolution of possessive pronouns in English VP ellipsis

Chinese pronominals in universal grammar: A study of linear precedence and command in Chinese and English children's first language acquisition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About