Refine
Year of publication
- 2003 (29) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (29) (remove)
Language
- English (29) (remove)
Institute
- Department Linguistik (29) (remove)
It has been claimed that the functional architecture of German clauses involves heads such as [Topic] that are defined by their information structure value, and that movement to the specifier position of such heads is (partially) responsible for free word order in German. This paper argues that this view is misguided. (i) There is no evidence for a syntactically defined topic position in the middle field of German clauses. (ii) The distinction between marked and unmarked serialization must also be made for structures that do not involve movement. (iii) Movement in the interest of information structure is often altruistic
Filling first positions
(2003)
German-learning infants' ability to detect unstressed closed-class elements in continuous speech
(2003)
The quality of vowels in French depends to a large extent on the kind of syllables they are in. Tense vowels are often in open syllables and lax vowels in closed ones. This generalization, which has been called loi de position in the literature, is often overridden by special vowel-consonant coocurrence restrictions obscuring the generalization. The paper shows first that the admission of semi-syllables in the phonology of French explains a large number of counterexamples. Many final closing consonants on the phonetic representation can be understood as onsets of following rhymeless syllables, opening in this way the last full syllable. Arguments coming from phonotactic regularities support this analysis. The second insight of the paper is that the Optimality Theory is a good framework to account for the intricate data bearing on the relationship between vowels and syllable structure. The loi de position is an effect dubbed Emergence of the Unmarked, instantiated only in case no higher-ranking constraint renders it inactive.
Counting Markedness
(2003)
This paper reports the results of a corpus investigation on case conflicts in German argument free relative constructions. We investigate how corpus frequencies reflect the relative markedness of free relative and correlative constructions, the relative markedness of different case conflict configurations, and the relative markedness of different conflict resolution strategies. Section 1 introduces the conception of markedness as used in Optimality Theory. Section 2 introduces the facts about German free relative clauses, and section 3 presents the results of the corpus study. By and large, markedness and frequency go hand in hand. However, configurations at the highest end of the markedness scale rarely show up in corpus data, and for the configuration at the lowest end we found an unexpected outcome: the more marked structure is preferred.
The present paper addresses a current view in the psycholinguistic literature that case exhibits processing properties distinct from those of other morphological features such as number (cf. Fodor & Inoue, 2000; Meng & Bader, 2000a/b). In a speeded-acceptability judgement experiment, we show that the low performance previously found for case in contrast to number violations is limited to nominative case, whereas violations involving accusative and dative are judged more accurately. The data thus do not support the proposal that case per se is associated with special properties (in contrast to other features such as number) in reanalysis processes. Rather, there are significant judgement differences between the object cases accusative and dative on the one hand and the subject nominative case on the other. This may be explained by the fact that nominative has a specific status in German (and many other languages) as a default case.
The present paper addresses a current view in the psycholinguistic literature that case exhibits processing properties distinct from those of other morphological features such as number (cf. Fodor & Inoue, 2000; Meng & Bader, 2000a/b). In a speeded-acceptability judgement experiment, we show that the low performance previously found for case in contrast to number violations is limited to nominative case, whereas violations involving accusative and dative are judged more accurately. The data thus do not support the proposal that case per se is associated with special properties (in contrast to other features such as number) in reanalysis processes. Rather, there are significant judgement differences between the object cases accusative and dative on the one hand and the subject nominative case on the other. This may be explained by the fact that nominative has a specific status in German (and many other languages) as a default case.
In the recent literature there is a hypothesis that the human parser uses number and case information in different ways to resolve an initially incorrect case assignment. This paper investigates what role morphological case information plays during the parser’s detection of an ungrammaticality or its recognition that a reanalysis is necessary. First, we compare double nominative with double accusative ungrammaticalities in a word by word, speeded grammaticality task and in this way show that only double nominatives lead to a so-called ”illusion of grammaticality” (a low rate of ungrammaticality detection). This illusion was found to disappear when the second argument was realized by a pronoun rather than by a full definite determiner phrase, i.e. when the saliency of the second argument was increased. Thus, the accuracy in recognizing an ungrammaticality induced by the case feature of the second argument is dependent on the type of this argument. Furthermore, we found that the accuracy in detecting such case ungrammaticalities is distance sensitive insofar as a shorter distance leads to a higher accuracy. The results are taken as support for an ”expectationdriven” parse strategy in which the way the parser uses the information of a current input item depends on the expectation resulting from the parse carried out so far. By contrast, ”input-driven” parse strategies, such as the diagnosis model (Fodor & Inoue, 1999) are unable to explain the data presented here.
Do we know the answer?
(2003)