Telescoping in relative clauses

Radó, Janina; Konietzko, Andreas; Sternefeld, Wolfgang

doi:10.1515/9783050095158-013

Cited by 3 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If raising the QP into the matrix clause is possible in (7a) but not in (7b), then the cataphoric pronoun seine ('his') should have a bound reading in (7a) but not in (7b) as revealed by end-of-trial comprehension responses. Radó et al ( 2019 ) additionally predicted longer RC reading times for (7b) compared to (7a) reflecting an attempted ECP violation in (7b).…”

Section: Pronoun Binding and C-command In L1 Processingmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Few studies to date have examined telescoping experimentally. Their results show that although telescoping readings are relatively easy to obtain in L1 comprehension (Carminati et al, 2002 ; Moulton & Han, 2018 ; Radó et al, 2019 ), pronouns do not seem to be linked to non c-commanding QPs during real-time incremental processing (Cunnings et al, 2015 ; Kush et al, 2015 ; Moulton & Han, 2018 ).…”

Section: Pronoun Binding and C-command In L1 Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notice that in all previous studies that failed to find gender effects for non c-commanding QPs, the QP served as the subject of the clause containing it. Radó et al ( 2019 : 411) note that from the perspective of a QR-based syntactic approach to telescoping, raising an embedded subject is problematic as this should incur a violation of the empty category principle (ECP). 3 Radó et al used a self-paced reading task to investigate whether a subject/object asymmetry could be observed during the processing of German sentences such as (7a, b).…”

Section: Pronoun Binding and C-command In L1 Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… read her text again proof 'The lecturer who fascinated almost every student proofread her text again.' (German; Radó et al, 2019 : 406) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidence from offline tasks suggests that telescoping interpretations are readily available to native language (L1) comprehenders (e.g. Moulton & Han, 2018 ; Radó et al, 2019 ), and sentences containing a pronoun linked to a non c-commanding rather than to a c-commanding QP do not necessarily give rise to increased processing cost during L1 comprehension (Carminati et al, 2002 ). Several recent reading-time studies have found no evidence for telescoping dependencies being computed during real-time processing, however (Cunnings et al, 2015 ; Kush et al, 2015 ; Moulton & Han, 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Binding Out of Relative Clauses in Native and Non-native Sentence Comprehension

Felser

Drummer

2022

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pronouns can sometimes covary with a non c-commanding quantifier phrase (QP). To obtain such 'telescoping' readings, a semantic representation must be computed in which the QP's semantic scope extends beyond its surface scope. Non-native speakers have been claimed to have more difficulty than native speakers deriving such non-isomorphic syntax-semantics mappings, but evidence from processing studies is scarce. We report the results from an eye-movement monitoring experiment and an offline questionnaire investigating whether native and non-native speakers of German can link personal pronouns to non c-commanding QPs inside relative clauses. Our results show that both participant groups were able to obtain telescoping readings offline, but only the native speakers showed evidence of forming telescoping dependencies during incremental parsing. During processing the non-native speakers focused on a discourse-prominent, non-quantified alternative antecedent instead. The observed group differences indicate that non-native comprehenders have more difficulty than native comprehenders computing scope-shifted representations in real time.

show abstract

Section: Pronoun Binding and C-command In L1 Processingmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Pronoun Binding and C-command In L1 Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pronoun Binding and C-command In L1 Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… read her text again proof 'The lecturer who fascinated almost every student proofread her text again.' (German; Radó et al, 2019 : 406) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Binding Out of Relative Clauses in Native and Non-native Sentence Comprehension

Felser

Drummer

2022

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Discourse-based pronoun resolution in non-native sentence processing

Puebla,

Felser

2023

Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Personal pronouns can potentially be resolved in logical syntax by means of variable binding (VB) or at the discourse-representational level through coreference assignment (CR). Previous research suggests that real-time reference resolution is guided more strongly by discourse-level cues in a non-native language (L2) than in a native language (L1). Here we use the VB/CR distinction to further test this hypothesis. Using eye-movement monitoring during reading and a complementary questionnaire task, we compared L1 German and L1 Russian/L2 German speakers’ resolution of object pronouns. While both our participant groups ultimately preferred CR over VB interpretations, only the L2 participants showed evidence of favouring a sentence-external CR antecedent from early on during processing. Our L1 group, by contrast, favoured a VB antecedent during processing. The observed L1/L2 processing differences reveal divergent antecedent search strategies, with L2 but not L1 speakers being primarily guided by discourse-level cues during real-time comprehension.

show abstract

C-command constraints in German: A corpus-based investigation

Webelhuth

2022

Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reinhart (1983) proposed that quantificational binding is subject to a surface c-command condition. Her claim has been widely accepted in the literature on the syntax-semantics interface. However, Barker (2012) presented systematic counterevidence against the c-command requirement from English. The current paper addresses the role of c-command constraints in the grammar of three phenomena in German: relative quantifier scope, quantificational binding, and negative polarity. The results of a large corpus study are presented that demonstrate empirically that scope of one quantifier over another, quantificational binding, and the licensing of negative polarity items in German are systematically possible in structural configurations where surface c-command cannot reasonably be assumed to obtain. Further corpus evidence is produced which shows that the non-c-commanding quantifiers in the examples typically occur in contexts where the set they quantify over is discourse-old or easy to accommodate. The overall picture that emerges from the empirical evidence is that topicality motivates wide scope, and scope rather than c-command licenses negative polarity items and bound pronouns.

show abstract

Telescoping in relative clauses

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Binding Out of Relative Clauses in Native and Non-native Sentence Comprehension

Binding Out of Relative Clauses in Native and Non-native Sentence Comprehension

Discourse-based pronoun resolution in non-native sentence processing

C-command constraints in German: A corpus-based investigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About