Projects Case Cross-linguistically & Animacy Radboud University Nijmegen Object fronting Helen de Hoop based on joint work with Monique

Projects Case Cross-linguistically &

Animacy Radboud University Nijmegen

www.ru.nl/pionier

Object fronting

Helen de Hoop

based on joint work withMonique Lamers

Helen de Hoop Object Fronting Barcelona 2007 2

Object fronting

Object fronting in Dutch

Dat weet ik zeker casethat know I sure

Het lijk heeft Jan verstopt animacythe corpse has Jan hidden

Jan sloeg Piet word orderJan hit Piet


Overview

Distinguishability Incremental optimization of

interpretation Evidence from ERPs Three types of verbs Evidence from rating studies Evidence from a production study A bidirectional perspective Conclusion


Distinguishability

Case can help to identify the first NP as the object

Latin

puer-um magisterlaudatboyACC teacher praises

‘The teacher praises the boy.’


Distinguishability

ACCUSATIVE = “part 2”

Prediction:

There is also a “part 1”


Distinguishability

part 2 part 1ACC subject

Within the domain of language comprehension, it is well established that syntactic dependencies give rise to predictive parsing (Gibson, 1998). For example, the processing of an unambiguously identifiable object will give rise to the prediction of a subject.


Distinguishability

Den Zaun habe ich zerbrochen

[the fence]ACC have INOM broken

“The fence, I broke.”


Distinguishability

Den Zaun habe ich zerbrochen

Distinguishability of subject and object

Case

Agreement

Prominence (animacy)

Selection

* Precedence (word order)


Distinguishability

Die Studentin hat die Professorin geschlagen

“The student hit the professor.”


Distinguishability

Die Studentin hat die Professorin geschlagen


* Case

* Agreement

* Prominence (animacy)

* Selection

Precedence (word order)


Distinguishability

The holiday pleased the man

The man liked the holiday


Distinguishability

The holiday pleased the man


* Case

* Agreement

* Prominence (animacy)

Selection

Precedence (word order)


Distinguishability

Case: the subject is in the nominative case, the object in the accusative

Agreement: the subject agrees with the verb

Prominence (animacy): the subject outranks the object in animacy

Selection: Fit the selection restrictions of the verb.

Precedence (word order): the subject linearly precedes the object


Determining the ranking

Ich habe den Zaun zerbrochen “I broke the fence”

CASE AGREE SELECT PREC PROM

Subject-initial

SI

Object-initial

OI * * * * *



Den Zaun habe ich zerbrochen “The fence I broke”


Subject-initial

SI * * * *

Object-initial

OI *



Der Zaun hat mich zerbrochen “The fence broke me”


SI * *

OI * * *



Die Jacke hat Bernhard gesehen“The coat, Bernhard saw”


SI * *

OI *



Bernhard hat die Vorstellung deprimiert “The play depressed Bernhard”


SI *

OI * *



Die Pflanze streifte Bernhard“The plant hit Bernhard”


SI *

OI *


The ranking of the constraints

Case, Agreement Selection Precedence Prominence


Incremental optimization

During sentence processing the optimal interpretation is being built up incrementally (word-by-word or constituent-by-constituent)

System of ranked constraints



Optimal interpretation at time t Jumping from one interpretation to

the other

ERP studies Lamers 2001





De oude vrouw…‘The old lady…’

SELECT PREC

SI

OI *




verzorgde…‘took care of…’

SELECT PREC

SI SI

OI OI *



Het oude park…‘The old park…’

SELECT PREC

SI

OI *



Het oude park…‘The old park…’


SELECT PREC

SI SI *

OI OI *





hem…‘him..’

CASE

PREC

SI SI SI

OI OI OI * *





hij…‘he…’

CASE

PREC

SI SI SI *

OI OI OI *


Evidence from ERPs

De oude vrouw…

verzorgde…

Het oude park…

verzorgde

CASE

SELECTION

PRECEDENCE

*

ERP - Early, late positivities


Evidence from ERPs

De oude vrouw verzorgde…

hem… De oude vrouw verzorgde…

hij

CASE

SELECTION

PRECEDENCE

*

ERP - Early, late positivities


Evidence from ERPs

Het oude park…

verzorgde De oude vrouw verzorgde…

hij

CASE

SELECTION

PRECEDENCE

* *

ERP Early, late positivities

Early, late positivities


De oude vrouw in de straat verzorgde hem/hij…

De oude vrouw/Het oude park … verzorgde hij…

case animacy


Evidence from ERPs

1. De oude vrouw verzorgde hem…2. Het oude park verzorgde hij…3. De oude vrouw verzorgde hij…

- (2) gets an OI reading at the verb (SELECTION)

- (3) gets an OI reading at the pronoun (CASE)

- Lamers (2001) reports similar ERP effects at the verb in (2) and at the pronoun in (3)


Evidence from ERPs

1. De oude vrouw verzorgde hem…2. Het oude park verzorgde hij…3. De oude vrouw verzorgde hij…

- Lamers (2001) reports similar ERP effects at the verb in (2) and at the pronoun in (3)

- At the verb in (2) and at the pronoun in (3) there is a “jump” from an SI to an OI reading (thereby violating PRECEDENCE)


Evidence from ERPs

Identical ERP effects correspond to identical patterns of constraint violations


Three types of verbs

agentive & experiencer-theme verbsCall (xAgent, yTheme) The secretary called the customer

causative psych/theme-experiencer verbsFrighten (xTheme/Stim, yExp) The secretary frightened us.

unaccusative psych verbsPlease (xTheme, yExp)

The secretary pleased us.



agentive & experiencer-theme verbs

Dat de toerist de stad zeer bewonderde… <SI>

that the tourist the city a-lot admired…

*Dat de stad de toerist zeer bewonderde… <OI>

that the city the tourist a-lot admired…



causative psych verbs

Dat de stad de toerist zeer deprimeerde… <SI>

that the city the tourist a-lot depressed…

Dat de toerist de stad zeer deprimeerde… <OI>

that the tourist the city a-lot depressed…



unaccusative psych verbs

Dat de stad de toerist zeer beviel… <SI>that the city the tourist a-lot pleased…

Dat de toerist de stad zeer beviel… <OI> that the tourist the city a-lot pleased…


Evidence from rating studies

Verb typeMean rating of SO

Mean rating of OS

Agentive6.9 (.11) 6.8 (0.7)

1.4 (.26) 1.8 (1.2)

Causative psych

6.3 (.49) 6.1 (1.3)

3.1 (.86) 3.2 (1.4)

Unaccusative psych

6.0 (.79) 5.9 (1.7)

4.8 (1.0) 4.6 (2.3)

Black: Lamers (2001) Orange: Lamers (2005)



General preference for subject-initial sentences

Strongest SI preference for agentive verbs

Highest rating of OI sentences for unaccusative psych verbs



Where do these differences between the three types of verbs come from?

Strongest SI preference for agentive verbs

Subject first Animate first



Psych verbs have an animate object

Therefore, only one of the two constraints can be satisfied

Subject first SI Animate first OI



But then, what is the difference between unaccusative and psych verbs?

Highest rating of OI sentences for unaccusative psych verbs

Production experiment (Hofmans & Lamers 2006)


A production study

30 normal participants (6 Broca aphasics)

12 sets of three verbs with an animate & inanimate NPs (2 combinations for each set of verbs)

three conditions for each verb:-no first NP given-animate first-inanimate first

depress student exam


condition

SI active

Passive OI active

other

agentive 79 16 0 6

causative 60 27 2 11

unacc 61 24 14

ANIMATE FIRSTSUBJECT FIRST


A production study

Subject First Animate First

Conflict between these two results in a higher occurrence of passive constructions with causative psych verbs satisfying both constraints, and a higher occurrence of OI constructions satisfying Animate First with unaccusative psych verbs.


A bidirectional perspective

Difference in rating can be explained in a bidirectional approach in which the hearer takes the speaker’s perspective into account.

But then, what is the difference between unaccusative and psych

verbs?


A bidirectional perspective

When a speaker wants to start with the animate argument, she can use a passive construction in case of a causative psych verb (thereby satisfying Subject First as well), but not in case of an unaccusative psych verb. Thus, for unaccusative psych verbs, only an OI sentence leads to satisfaction of Animate First.


Conclusions

Subject First is more important than Animate First.

If a speaker wants to satisfy Subject First as well as Animate First, then a conflict may arise in the case of psych verbs (that have animate objects).

To solve the conflict, a passive construction may be used (which implies satisfaction of both constraints).

But if passive formation is not possible (unaccusative psych verbs), then object fronting is the only way to satisfy Animate First.

This explains the increase of both the rating and the production of object-initial sentences in the case of unaccusative psych verbs.


Case cross-linguistically & Animacywww.ru.nl/pionier/

Documents

Projects Case Cross-linguistically & Animacy Radboud University Nijmegen Object fronting Helen de Hoop based on joint work with Monique