Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Left edge topics in Russian and the processing of anaphoric dependencies1

  • MARIA POLINSKY (a1) and ERIC POTSDAM (a2)
Abstract

This paper investigates the cost of processing syntactic versus extra-syntactic dependencies. The results support the hypothesis that syntactic dependencies require less processing effort than discourse-derived dependencies do (Reuland 2001, 2011; Koornneef 2008). The point is made through the analysis of a novel paradigm in Russian in which a preposed nominal stranding a numeral can show number connectivity (paucal) with a gap following the numeral or can appear in a non-agreeing (plural) form, as in cathedral-paucal/plural, there were three.paucal __. Numerous syntactic diagnostics confirm that when there is number connectivity, the nominal has been fronted via A′-movement, creating a syntactic A′-chain dependency. In the absence of connectivity, the construction involves a hanging topic related via discourse mechanisms to a base-generated null pronoun. The constructions constitute a minimal pair and Reuland's proposals correctly predict that the A′-movement construction will require less processing effort compared to the hanging topic construction. A self-paced reading study for contrasting pairs as in the above example showed a statistically significant slow-down after the gap with the hanging topic as opposed to the moved nominal. We take this to support the claim that a syntactic A′-chain is more easily processed than an anaphoric dependency involving a null pronoun, which must be resolved by discourse-based mechanisms.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Authors' addresses: (Polinsky) Department of Linguistics, Boylston Hall Third Floor, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USApolinsky@fas.harvard.edu
(Potsdam) Linguistics Department, P.O. Box 115454, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USApotsdam@ufl.edu
Footnotes
Hide All

We are grateful to John Bailyn, Ivano Caponigro, Brian Dillon, Lyn Frazier, Tania Ionin, Ora Matushansky, Barbara Partee, Colin Phillips, Nina Radkevich, Greg Scontras, Irina Sekerina, Yakov Testelets, Ming Xiang, and three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for a helpful discussion of this project. We would also like to thank Elena Beshenkova, Vladimir Borschev, Boris Dralyuk, Irina Dubinina, Tania Ionin, Oksana Laleko, Anna Mikhaylova, Elena Muravenko, Alexander Nikolaev, Alfia Rakova, Sol Polinsky, Alex Yanovsky, and Marina Zelenina for their help with Russian judgments. All errors are our responsibility.

The work presented here was supported in part by funding from the Davis Center at Harvard University, the Heritage Language Resource Center at UCLA, and the United States Government to the first author. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any agency or entity of the United States Government.

The following glossing abbreviations are used: coll = collective, part = partitive, pauc = paucal. Other abbreviations follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules.

Footnotes
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Judith Aissen . 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68.1, 4380.

Joseph Aoun & Lina Choueiri . 2000. Epithets. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18, 139.

John Frederick Bailyn 2001. On scrambling: A reply to Bošković and Takahashi. Linguistic Inquiry 32.4, 635658.

Cedric Boeckx . 2003. Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Željko Bošković . 2006. Case and agreement with genitive of quantification in Russian. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Agreement systems, 99121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Željko Bošković & Steven Franks . 2000. Across the board movement and LF. Syntax 3.2, 107128.

Marisa F. Boston , John T. Hale , Shravan Vasishth & Reinhold Kliegl . 2011. Parallel processing and sentence comprehension difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 26.3, 301349.

Carlo Cecchetto . 2000. Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus 12.1, 93126.

Elisabet Engdahl . 1983. Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy 6.1, 534.

Steven Franks . 1992. A prominence constraint on null operator constructions. Lingua 88.1, 120.

Masako Hirotani , Lyn Frazier & Keith Rayner . 2006. Punctuation and intonation effects on clause and sentence wrap-up: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 54.3, 425443.

Ellen Lau , Clare Stroud , Silke Plesch & Colin Phillips . 2006. The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language 98.1, 7488.

Luis Lopez . 2009. A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nicola Molinaro , Horacio Barber & Manuel Carreiras . 2011. Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex 47.8, 908930.

Maria Polinsky , Carlos Gomez-Gallo , Peter Graff & Ekaterina Kravtchenko . 2012. Subject preference and ergativity. Lingua 122.3, 267277.

Luigi Rizzi . 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: A handbook in generative syntax, 281337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Ken Safir . 2008. Coconstrual and narrow syntax. Syntax 11.3, 330355.

Andrea Santi & Yosef Grodzinsky . 2012. Broca's area and sentence comprehension: A relationship parasitic on dependency, displacement or predictability? Neuropsychologia 50.5, 821832.

Petra Schumacher , Maria Piñango , Esther Ruigendijk & Sergey Avrutin . 2010. Reference assignment in Dutch: Evidence for the syntax–discourse divide. Lingua 120.7, 17381763.

Lewis Shapiro & Arild Hestvik . 1995. On-line comprehension of VP ellipsis: Syntactic reconstruction and the semantic influence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24.6, 517532.

Lewis Shapiro , Arild Hestvik , Lesli Lesan & Rachel A. Garcia . 2003. Charting the time-course of VP-ellipsis sentence comprehension: Evidence for an initial and independent structural analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 49.1, 119.

Arthur Stepanov . 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10.1, 80126.

Anne Sturgeon . 2008. The left periphery: The interaction of syntax, pragmatics and prosody in Czech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mieko Ueno & Susan M. Garnsey . 2008. An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes 23.5, 646688.

Matthew W. Wagers , Ellen F. Lau & Colin Phillips . 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 61.2, 206237.

Ming Xiang , Boris Harizanov , Maria Polinsky & Ekaterina Kravtchenko . 2011. Processing morphological ambiguity: An experimental investigation of Russian numerical phrases. Lingua 121.3, 548560.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Linguistics
  • ISSN: 0022-2267
  • EISSN: 1469-7742
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 20 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 84 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 29th March 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.