Revisiting Pronominal Typology

Patel-Grosz, Pritty; Grosz, Patrick Georg

doi:10.1162/ling_a_00243

Cited by 38 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Binding: Patel- Grosz and Grosz (2017) Patel-Grosz and Grosz (to appear) agree with Hinterwimmer (2015) that DPros can in principle be bound. Their analysis, however, differs from Hinterwimmer (2015) in that the authors do not assume DPros to come with a lexical presupposition which prevents them from being bound by/co-referring to the (currently) most prominent DP.…”

Section: Co-referencementioning

confidence: 52%

“…1 Patel-Grosz and Grosz (2017) follow Schlenker (2005) in assuming that the pragmatic economy principle Minimize restrictors! is in effect.…”

Section: Co-referencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, our data will also have implications for the ambiguity avoidance account of Patel- Grosz and Grosz (2017). We conducted two self-paced reading experiments, in which readers read single sentences containing a subject and a direct, indirect, or prepositional object determiner phrase (DP).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…in configurations where the DPro is c-commanded by its antecedent (see Reinhart 1983;Heim 1998;Reinhart 2006). Notable exceptions are Wiltschko (1998), Hinterwimmer (2015), and Patel- Grosz and Grosz (2017). Wiltschko (1998) suggested that DPros, unlike personal pronouns (PPros) of the er/sie/es paradigm, cannot be bound at all.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[ Another approach to the binding options of DPros is provided by Patel- Grosz and Grosz (2017). The authors agree with Hinterwimmer (2015) that DPros can be bound but, unlike Hinterwimmer, assume that DPros can only be used when there is some goal of the speaker that could not be achieved by the use of a PPro.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

An experimental investigation of the binding options of demonstrative pronouns in German

Hinterwimmer

Brocher

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses data from two self-paced reading experiments as well as an acceptability rating study that shed light on the binding behaviour of demonstrative pronouns as opposed to personal pronouns. Participants read (Experiments 1 & 2) or rated (Experiment 3) single sentences that contained either a demonstrative pronoun (DPro) or a personal pronoun (PPro). Sentences contained a determiner phrase (DP) that functioned as the grammatical subject and a DP that functioned as the direct, indirect or prepositional object. The pronoun was either contained in the direct object DP or a prepositional object DP. In half of the sentences, pronouns could only be interpreted as bound by the subject DP. In the other half of sentences, they could only be interpreted as bound by the object DP. Results from Experiment 1 reveal similar reading times for DPros and PPros when they were bound by the object DP, and significantly longer reading times for DPros than PPros when they were bound by the subject DP. Experiment 2 replicated the DPro effect from Experiment 1 with materials where potential subject and object binders were quantifiers. Finally, Experiment 3 shows that also in the context of quantifier binding DPros are not generally dispreferred. Sentences with a DPro were only rated as less acceptable than sentences with a PPro when the potential binder was the subject. Taken together, our data provide evidence that DPros can be bound as long as their binders are not grammatical subjects.

show abstract

Section: Co-referencementioning

confidence: 52%

“…1 Patel-Grosz and Grosz (2017) follow Schlenker (2005) in assuming that the pragmatic economy principle Minimize restrictors! is in effect.…”

Section: Co-referencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%