Skip to main content Accesibility Help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
Cancel
×
×
Home
  • Home
Article
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by
    Crossref Citations
    Crossref logo
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.
    Clemens, Lauren Eby Coon, Jessica Mateo Pedro, Pedro Morgan, Adam Milton Polinsky, Maria Tandet, Gabrielle and Wagers, Matthew 2015. Ergativity and the complexity of extraction: a view from Mayan. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 33, Issue. 2, p. 417.
    ×
  • Get access
    Add to cart USD25.00
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
    Log in Register

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
COPYRIGHT: © Cambridge University Press 2014 
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
[1]

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
References
Hide All
Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Aissen, Judith. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68.1, 43–80.
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2006. Left Dislocation (including CLLD). In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. II, 668–699. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1994. Clitic dependencies in Modern Greek. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Salzburg.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1997. Clitic Left Dislocation and Contrastive Left Dislocation. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 151–192.
Elena, Anagnostopoulou, van Riemsdijk, Henk & Zwarts, Frans (eds.). 1997. Materials on Left Dislocation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas & Choueiri, Lina. 2010. The syntax of Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aoun, Joseph & Choueiri, Lina. 2000. Epithets. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18, 1–39.
Bailyn, John F[rederick]. 1995. Underlying phrase structure and short verb movement in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 3.1, 13–58.
Bailyn, John Frederick 2001. On scrambling: A reply to Bošković and Takahashi. Linguistic Inquiry 32.4, 635–658.
Bailyn, John Frederick. 2003. Does Russian scrambling exist? In Karimi, Simin (ed.), Word order and scrambling, 156–176. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Bailyn, John F[rederick] 2007. A derivational approach to micro-variation in Slavic binding. In Compton, et al. (eds.), 25–41.
Bailyn, John Frederick. 2012. The syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bailyn, John F[rederick] & Nevins, Andrew. 2008. Russian genitive plurals are impostors. In Bachrach, Asaf & Nevins, Andrew (eds.), Inflectional identity, 237–270. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benincà, Paola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. Topic, focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In Rizzi, Luigi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2, 52–75. New York: Oxford University Press.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bošković, Željko. 2006. Case and agreement with genitive of quantification in Russian. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Agreement systems, 99–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bošković, Željko & Franks, Steven. 2000. Across the board movement and LF. Syntax 3.2, 107–128.
Boston, Marisa F., Hale, John T., Vasishth, Shravan & Kliegl, Reinhold. 2011. Parallel processing and sentence comprehension difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 26.3, 301–349.
Burkhardt, Petra. 2005. The syntax–discourse interface: Representing and interpreting dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cecchetto, Carlo. 2000. Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus 12.1, 93–126.
Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2, 303–351.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Choo, Suk-hoon, Hong, Jun-hee & Hwang, Ji-young. 2007. Genitive-initial sentences in Russian and the typology of case assignment. Language and Linguistics 40, 153–174.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1977. The movement nature of Left Dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 8.2, 397–411.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A″-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1997[1983]. ‘Topic’ constructions in some European languages and ‘connectedness’. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 93–118.
Compton, Richard, Goledzinowska, Magdalena & Savchenko, Ulyana (eds.). 2007. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15: The Toronto Meeting 2006. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Crockett, Dina. 1976. Agreement in contemporary Standard Russian. Cambridge, MA: Slavica.
Culicover, Peter W. 2001. Parasitic gaps: A history. In Culicover, & Postal, (eds.), 3–68.
Culicover, Peter W. & Postal, Paul M. (eds.). 2001. Parasitic gaps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
De Cat, Cecile. 2007. French dislocation: Interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1983. Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy 6.1, 5–34.
Escobar, Linda. 1997. Clitic Left Dislocation and other relatives. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 233–274.
Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11.2, 337–362.
Fanselow, Gisbert & Frisch, Stefan. 2006. Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In Fanselow, Gisbert, Féry, Caroline, Schlesewsky, Matthias & Vogel, Robert (eds.), Gradience in grammar, 291–316. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Franks, Steven. 1992. A prominence constraint on null operator constructions. Lingua 88.1, 1–20.
Franks, Steven. 1993. On parallelism in across-the-board dependencies. Linguistic Inquiry 24.3, 509–529.
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.
Frazier, Lyn & Clifton, Charles. 2000. On bound variable interpretations: The LF-only hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29.2, 125–139.
Grebenyova, Lydia. 2006. Sluicing and the nature of encoding grammatical violations. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 25–38.
Grebenyova, Lydia. 2007. Sluicing in Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 15.1, 49–80.
Grewendorf, Günther. 2008. The left clausal periphery: Clitic Left Dislocation in Italian and Left Dislocation in German. In Shaer, Benjamin, Cook, Philippa, Frey, Werner & Maienborn, Claudia (eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse: Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives, 49–94. New York: Routledge.
Grodzinsky, Yosef & Reinhart, Tanya. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24.1, 69–101.
Harstuiker, Robert, Schriefers, Herbert, Bock, Kathryn & Kikstra, Gerdien. 2003. Morphophonological influences on the construction of subject–verb agreement. Memory and Cognition 31.8, 1316–1326.
Hirotani, Masako, Frazier, Lyn & Rayner, Keith. 2006. Punctuation and intonation effects on clause and sentence wrap-up: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 54.3, 425–443.
Hirschbühler, Paul. 1997[1974]. On the source of lefthand NPs in French. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 151–192.
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
House, Richard. 1982. The use of genitive initial sentences for the specification of quantity in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Ivlieva, Natalia. 2007. Parasitic gaps in Russian. In Compton, et al. (eds.), 132–140.
Kasai, Hironobu. 2004. Two notes on ATB movement. Language and Linguistics 5, 167–188.
Kazenin, Konstantin. 1997. Sintaksičeskie ograničenija i puti ix ob″jasnenija (na materiale dagestanskix jazykov). Ph.D. dissertation (Kandidatskja dissertacija), Moscow State University.
King, Tracy Holloway. 1995. Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Koornneef, Arnout. 2008. Eye-catching anaphora. Utrecht: LOT.
Lau, Ellen, Stroud, Clare, Plesch, Silke & Phillips, Colin. 2006. The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language 98.1, 74–88.
Levy, Roger, Gibson, Edward & Fedorenko, Evelina. 2008. Expectation-based processing of extraposed structures in English. Poster presented at the 2008 CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Lopez, Luis. 2009. A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mitchell, Don C. 1984. An evaluation of subject-paced reading tasks and other methods for investigating immediate processes in reading. In Kieras, David & Just, Martin (eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research, 69–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mitchell, Don C. 2004. On-line methods in language processing: Introduction and historical review. In Carreiras, Manuel & Clifton, Charles E. (eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP and beyond, 15–32. New York: Psychology Press.
Molinaro, Nicola, Barber, Horacio & Carreiras, Manuel. 2011. Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex 47.8, 908–930.
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Partee, Barbara & Borschev, Vladimir. 2006. Information structure, perspectival structure, diathesis alternation, and the Russian genitive of negation. The Ninth Symposium on Logic and Language (LoLa 9), 120–129. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Piñango, Maria & Burkhardt, Petra. 2005. Pronominal interpretation and the syntax–discourse interface: Real time comprehension and neurological properties. In Branco, Antonio, McEnery, Tony & Mitkov, Ruslan (eds.), Anaphora processing: Linguistic cognitive and computational modeling, 221–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Polinsky, Maria, Gomez-Gallo, Carlos, Graff, Peter & Kravtchenko, Ekaterina. 2012. Subject preference and ergativity. Lingua 122.3, 267–277.
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: CSLI Publications.
Postal, Paul M. 2001. Further lacunae in the English parasitic gap paradigm. In Culicover, & Postal, (eds.), 223–249.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reinhart, Tanya & Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24.4, 657–720.
Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32.3, 439–492.
Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar: A handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Rozental’, Ditmar. 1994. Russkaja orfografija i punktuacija, 2nd edn. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.
Safir, Ken. 2004. The syntax of (in)dependence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Safir, Ken. 2008. Coconstrual and narrow syntax. Syntax 11.3, 330–355.
Santi, Andrea & Grodzinsky, Yosef. 2012. Broca's area and sentence comprehension: A relationship parasitic on dependency, displacement or predictability? Neuropsychologia 50.5, 821–832.
Schumacher, Petra, Piñango, Maria, Ruigendijk, Esther & Avrutin, Sergey. 2010. Reference assignment in Dutch: Evidence for the syntax–discourse divide. Lingua 120.7, 1738–1763.
Sekerina, Irina. 1997. The syntax and processing of scrambling constructions in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center.
Shapiro, Lewis & Hestvik, Arild. 1995. On-line comprehension of VP ellipsis: Syntactic reconstruction and the semantic influence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24.6, 517–532.
Shapiro, Lewis, Hestvik, Arild, Lesan, Lesli & Garcia, Rachel A.. 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, 1–19.
Stepanov, Arthur. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10.1, 80–126.
Sturgeon, Anne. 2008. The left periphery: The interaction of syntax, pragmatics and prosody in Czech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2006. Strong vs. weak islands. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. IV, 479–531. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Testelets, Jakov. 2001. Vvedenie v obščij sintaksis. Moscow: RGGU.
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.
Ueno, Mieko & Garnsey, Susan M.. 2008. An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes 23.5, 646–688.
Valgina, Nina S. 1979. Russkaja punktuacija: Principy i naznačenie. Moscow: Prosveščenie.
van Gompel, Roger & Liversedge, Simon P.. 2003. The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29.1, 128–139.
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1997. Left Dislocation. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 1–12.
van Riemsdjik, Henk & Zwarts, Frans. 1997 [1974]. Left Dislocation in Dutch and status of copying rules. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 13–30.
Vasić, Nada. 2006. Pronoun comprehension in agrammatic aphasia: The structure and use of linguistic knowledge. Utrecht: LOT.
Vasishth, Shravan. 2003. Working memory in sentence comprehension: Processing Hindi center embeddings. New York: Garland.
Vat, Jan. 1997 [1981]. Left Dislocation, connectedness, and reconstruction. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 67–92.
Wagers, Matthew W., Lau, Ellen F. & Phillips, Colin. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 61.2, 206–237.
Williams, Edwin. 1978. Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9.1, 31–43.
Wiltschko, Martina. 1997. Parasitic operators in German left-dislocation. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 307–340.
Xiang, Ming, Harizanov, Boris, Polinsky, Maria & Kravtchenko, Ekaterina. 2011. Processing morphological ambiguity: An experimental investigation of Russian numerical phrases. Lingua 121.3, 548–560.
Zaenen, Annie. 1997. Contrastive dislocation in Dutch and Icelandic. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 119–150.
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1968. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie. Moscow: Nauka.
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? *

CAPTCHA *

Skip to the audio challenge
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

Cancel
Confirm
×