POSTER TEMPLATE BY: om Null Anaphoric Possessor Arguments of Kinship Nouns and Long-Distance...
1
POSTER TEMPLATE BY: www.PosterPresentation s.com Null Anaphoric Possessor Arguments of Kinship Nouns and Long-Distance Binding in Mandarin Hezao Ke 1,2 , Ya Zhao 2,3 , Liqun Gao 2 , Shuying Liu 2 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1 , Beijing Language and Culture University 2 , Northwest University for Nationalities 3 . Background Focus of this study: kinship nouns in Chinese, which is a typical kind of relational nouns (RNs). Definition: RNs, in narrow sense, are Nouns which have more than one argument in their lexical meaning. (Barker, 1995; Partee 1987/1997; etc). As a RN, a kinship noun such as father has a lexically inherent extra argument. [[father]]= [λxλy. father (x, y)] [[Mary’s father]]= [λxλy. father (x, y)](m) = λy. father (m, y) Father picks up Mary as one of its arguments. Research Questions Experiment 1 Test sentence : 2) a. Zhangsan dai-le erzi qu Qingdao. Zhangsan take-ASP son to Qingdao. ‘Zhangsan took (his) son to Qingdao.’ Control condition : Used a similar story except all the occurrences of kinship nouns were replaced with other nouns such as schoolbag, dog, etc. At the end of the story, a control sentence was presented: Control sentence : 2)b. Zhangsan na-le shubao hui sushe. Zhangsan take-ASP schoolbag to dormitory . ‘Zhangsan took a schoolbag to the dormitory.’ Results The participants rejected the test sentences with a rate of 89.7%, but accepted the control sentences with a rate of 91.2%. Experiment 2 Lead-in sentence : Now, let me say something about this story. In this story, Mickey Mouse talk to Donald Duck about going to an island for a trip. Finally, er…… Test sentence : 3) a. Milaoshu [ PP zai Tanglaoya zhuyuan de shihou] dai-le erzi qu xiaodao lvyou. Mickey-Mouse at Donald-Duck hospitalize DE time take-ASP son to island travel. ‘Mickey Mouse, during the time when Donald Duck was hospitalized, took (his) son to the island for a trip.’ The NP Mickey Mouse c-commands the kinship noun son, but Donald Duck, which is a NP inside the PP, does not c- command son. Control condition : A similar story was presented except all the occurrences of kinship nouns were replaced with other nouns such as fish, hamburger, etc. At the end of the story, a control sentence was presented: Control sentence : 3)b. Xiaoqingwa [ PP zai xiaohema shuijiao de shihou] chidiao-le hanbao. Frog at Hippo sleep DE time eat-off-ASP hamburger. ‘Mr. Frog, during the time when Mr. Hippo was asleep, ate (his) hamburger.’ Results The participants overwhelmingly rejected the test sentences and accepted the control sentences, with a rejection rate of 95.0% and an acceptance rate of 88.3%, respectively. Supporting a Syntactic Approach Conclusions Kinship nouns are different from non-relational nouns in that a kinship noun has an implicit anaphoric possessor argument, and this argument is obligatorily bound by some NP which c-commands it. General Discussion The results of the first experiment can be readily explained by assuming an extra syntactic argument inside the kinship nouns. This argument is anaphoric since it is obligatorily bound by its antecedent. The results also show kinship nouns are relevant to inalienability. Experiment 2 shows that a syntactic requirement, i.e. a c-command requirement, is involved in the interpretation of kinship nouns. This evidence underpins the idea that the extra argument is syntactic rather than only semantic or pragmatic. Other evidences follow. Q1: Is the implicit argument pronominal or anaphoric? (Experiment 1) Q2: Is the implicit argument a theta assigned syntactic argument or only a semantic argument? A related question: is there any syntactic processing involved in the interpretation of kinship nouns? (Experiment 2) Intuitions are not sharp enough... Example: “semi-relational” nouns 1) Zhangsan qizhe luotuo qu lvxing. Zhangsan ride camel to travel ‘Zhangsan travelled on a/his camel.’ Are the “semi-relational” such as pets and other human-owned things the same with kinship nouns? Achimova, Deprez & Musolino (in press): Controlled experimentation should be underscored as an important tool for theory construction. 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 89.7% 8.8% 1.5% 8.8% 91.2% 0.0% test sentence control sentence Figure 1: Percentage of rejection, acceptance and uncertainty to test/control sentence. Results of Experiment 1 rejection acceptance 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 11.7% 88.3% test sentence control sentence Figure 2: Percentage of rejection, acceptance to test/control sentence. Results of Experiment 2 Conclusions and General Discussion Evidence 1 Kinship nouns VS. body-part nouns: Long-distance and local binding. Compare (4) with (5): 4) Lisi J xihuan Zhangsan K meitian xi toufa *J/K . Lisi like Zhangsan everyday wash hair ‘Lisi likes that Zhangsan washes his hair everyday.’ 5) Zhangsan J renwei Lisi K hen liaojie erzi J/K . Zhangsan think Lisi very know son ‘Zhangsan thinks Lisi know his son very well.’ The implicit arguments of kinship nouns can be long- distance bound (5), whereas those of body-part nouns can only be locally bound (4). This distinction can be accounted for if we assume there are two types of anaphora in Mandarin Chinese (MC). Evidence 2 A possible correlation between the existence of long-distance bound anaphoric possessor arguments of kinship nouns and long-distance bound reflexives. If a language L has null long-distance bound anaphor, then L will also have overt long-distance bound anaphor (a counterpart to ziji ‘self’ in MC). Experiment 1 Method Subjects : 17 master’s students in linguistics were recruited from Beijing Language and Culture University (BLCU). Procedure : A variant of Truth Value Judgment Task (Crain & Thornton, 1998) An experimenter told a participant a story. Then test/control sentences were presented by the experimenter as a statement concerning the story. The subjects’ role was to determine the truth value of the sentences according to the story. Materials : 8 stories (4 test and 4 control sentences) each followed by a test statement. Typical test item story (in Chinese): Zhangsan and Lisi wanted to bring their sons to Qingdao for a trip. Eventually, Zhangsan took Lisi’s son but not his own son to Qingdao. After the story, a lead-in sentence and test sentence (2a) were presented to the subjects. Discussion (The implicit argument of) kinship nouns should be obligatorily bound by their antecedents, where they can pick up their referents, while non- relational nouns do not have bound arguments. Reasons for exceptions: Reasons to accept test sentences: 1. In one out of six acceptances of the test sentence a subject forgot the content of the story. 2. One subject said the test sentences were true in all his 4 answers. Reasons to reject control sentences: 1. There are six rejections of the control sentences. A subject consistently rejected the control sentences because he thought the expressions were ambiguous and not accurate. However, this indicates that the subject realized that non-relational nouns are not obligatorily bound. 2. In another rejection the subject forgot the content of the story. Experiment 2 Method Subjects : 15 master’s students in linguistics were recruited from BLCU. None of them had participated in Experiment 1. Procedure : The same as in Experiment 1. Materials : 8 stories (4 test and 4 control sentences) each followed by a test statement. Typical test item story (in Chinese): Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck wanted to bring their sons on a trip. However before their departure, Donald Duck got a toothache, and was sent to the hospital. Eventually, Mickey Mouse took Donald Duck’s Hezao Ke, [email protected] TP NP K Mickey-Mouse VP PP hospitalize DE time travel V’ c-command doesn’t c-command T’ AspP Asp’ at P NP take-ASP V VP VP son NP V’ PP V V’ to island VP V Donald-Duck
-
Upload
gwendoline-mckinney -
Category
Documents
-
view
237 -
download
1
Transcript of POSTER TEMPLATE BY: om Null Anaphoric Possessor Arguments of Kinship Nouns and Long-Distance...
POSTER TEMPLATE BY:
www.PosterPresentations.com
Null Anaphoric Possessor Arguments of Kinship Nouns and Long-Distance Binding in Mandarin
Hezao Ke1,2, Ya Zhao2,3, Liqun Gao2, Shuying Liu2
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor1,Beijing Language and Culture University2,
Northwest University for Nationalities3.
Background
Focus of this study: kinship nouns in Chinese, which is a typical kind of relational nouns (RNs).
Definition: RNs, in narrow sense, are Nouns which have more than one argument in their lexical meaning. (Barker, 1995; Partee 1987/1997; etc). As a RN, a kinship noun such as father has a lexically inherent extra argument.
[[father]]= [λxλy. father (x, y)]
[[Mary’s father]]= [λxλy. father (x, y)](m) = λy. father (m, y)
Father picks up Mary as one of its arguments.
Research Questions
Experiment 1
Test sentence:2) a. Zhangsan dai-le erzi qu Qingdao. Zhangsan take-ASP son to Qingdao. ‘Zhangsan took (his) son to Qingdao.’
Control condition:Used a similar story except all the occurrences of kinship nouns were replaced with other nouns such as schoolbag, dog, etc. At the end of the story, a control sentence was presented:
Control sentence:2)b. Zhangsan na-le shubao hui sushe. Zhangsan take-ASP schoolbag to dormitory . ‘Zhangsan took a schoolbag to the dormitory.’
Results
The participants rejected the test sentences with a rate of 89.7%, but accepted the control sentences with a rate of 91.2%.
Experiment 2
Lead-in sentence: Now, let me say something about this story. In this story, Mickey Mouse talk to Donald Duck about going to an island for a trip. Finally, er……
Test sentence: 3) a. Milaoshu [PP zai Tanglaoya zhuyuan de shihou] dai-le erzi qu xiaodao lvyou. Mickey-Mouse at Donald-Duck hospitalize DE time take-ASP son to island travel. ‘Mickey Mouse, during the time when Donald Duck was hospitalized, took (his) son to the island for a trip.’
The NP Mickey Mouse c-commands the kinship noun son, but Donald Duck, which is a NP inside the PP, does not c-command son.
Control condition:A similar story was presented except all the occurrences of kinship nouns were replaced with other nouns such as fish, hamburger, etc. At the end of the story, a control sentence was presented:
Control sentence:3)b. Xiaoqingwa [PP zai xiaohema shuijiao de shihou] chidiao-le hanbao. Frog at Hippo sleep DE time eat-off-ASP hamburger. ‘Mr. Frog, during the time when Mr. Hippo was asleep, ate (his) hamburger.’
Results
The participants overwhelmingly rejected the test sentences and accepted the control sentences, with a rejection rate of 95.0% and an acceptance rate of 88.3%, respectively.
Discussion
(The implicit argument of) a RN is bound by its antecedent, which c-commands it. But a non-relational is free from binding.
Reasons for rejection of control sentences: Five out of seven occurrences of rejection of
control sentence were in the third control sentence, where there is a contrast between possessors of a “fish” in the lead-in sentence.
Supporting a Syntactic Approach
Conclusions
Kinship nouns are different from non-relational nouns in that a kinship noun has an implicit anaphoric possessor argument, and this argument is obligatorily bound by some NP which c-commands it.
General Discussion
The results of the first experiment can be readily explained by assuming an extra syntactic argument inside the kinship nouns. This argument is anaphoric since it is obligatorily bound by its antecedent. The results also show kinship nouns are relevant to inalienability.
Experiment 2 shows that a syntactic requirement, i.e. a c-command requirement, is involved in the interpretation of kinship nouns. This evidence underpins the idea that the extra argument is syntactic rather than only semantic or pragmatic.
Other evidences follow.
Q1: Is the implicit argument pronominal or anaphoric? (Experiment 1)
Q2: Is the implicit argument a theta assigned syntactic argument or only a semantic argument?
A related question: is there any syntactic processing involved in the interpretation of kinship nouns? (Experiment 2)
Intuitions are not sharp enough...
Example: “semi-relational” nouns
1) Zhangsan qizhe luotuo qu lvxing. Zhangsan ride camel to travel ‘Zhangsan travelled on a/his camel.’
Are the “semi-relational” such as pets and other human-owned things the same with kinship nouns?
Achimova, Deprez & Musolino (in press): Controlled experimentation should be underscored as an important tool for theory construction.
rejection acceptance uncertainty0.0%
10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%
100.0%89.7%
8.8%1.5%
8.8%
91.2%
0.0%
test sentence
control sentence
Figure 1: Percentage of rejection, acceptance and uncertainty to test/control sentence.
Results of Experiment 1
rejection acceptance0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0% 95.0%
5.0%11.7%
88.3%
test sentencecontrol sentence
Figure 2: Percentage of rejection, acceptance to test/control sentence.
Results of Experiment 2
Conclusions and General Discussion
Evidence 1
Kinship nouns VS. body-part nouns: Long-distance and local binding.Compare (4) with (5):
4) LisiJ xihuan ZhangsanK meitian xi toufa*J/K.
Lisi like Zhangsan everyday wash hair
‘Lisi likes that Zhangsan washes his hair everyday.’
5) ZhangsanJ renwei LisiK hen liaojie erziJ/K.
Zhangsan think Lisi very know son
‘Zhangsan thinks Lisi know his son very well.’
The implicit arguments of kinship nouns can be long-distance bound (5), whereas those of body-part nouns can only be locally bound (4). This distinction can be accounted for if we assume there are two types of anaphora in Mandarin Chinese (MC).
Evidence 2
A possible correlation between the existence of long-distance bound anaphoric possessor arguments of kinship nouns and long-distance bound reflexives.
If a language L has null long-distance bound anaphor, then L will also have overt long-distance bound anaphor (a counterpart to ziji ‘self’ in MC).
Sinhala, Korean, Italian, Dutch, Norwegian, Japanese, Russian have both a long-distance bound reflexive and long-distance bound null anaphoric argument, while Spanish and German have neither.
Experiment 1
Method
Subjects: 17 master’s students in linguistics were recruited from Beijing Language and Culture University (BLCU).
Procedure: A variant of Truth Value Judgment
Task (Crain & Thornton, 1998) An experimenter told a participant a
story. Then test/control sentences were
presented by the experimenter as a statement concerning the story.
The subjects’ role was to determine the truth value of the sentences according to the story.
Materials:8 stories (4 test and 4 control sentences) each followed by a test statement. Typical test item story (in Chinese): Zhangsan and Lisi wanted to bring their sons to Qingdao for a trip. Eventually, Zhangsan took Lisi’s son but not his own son to Qingdao. After the story, a lead-in sentence and test sentence (2a) were presented to the subjects.
Lead-in sentence: Now, let me say something about this story. In this story, Zhangsan talked to Lisi about going to Qingdao for a trip. Finally, er……
Discussion
(The implicit argument of) kinship nouns should be obligatorily bound by their antecedents, where they can pick up their referents, while non-relational nouns do not have bound arguments.
Reasons for exceptions: Reasons to accept test sentences:1. In one out of six acceptances of the test
sentence a subject forgot the content of the story.
2. One subject said the test sentences were true in all his 4 answers.
Reasons to reject control sentences:1. There are six rejections of the control
sentences. A subject consistently rejected the control sentences because he thought the expressions were ambiguous and not accurate. However, this indicates that the subject realized that non-relational nouns are not obligatorily bound.
2. In another rejection the subject forgot the content of the story.
Experiment 2
Method
Subjects:15 master’s students in linguistics were recruited from BLCU. None of them had participated in Experiment 1.
Procedure:The same as in Experiment 1.
Materials:8 stories (4 test and 4 control sentences) each followed by a test statement. Typical test item story (in Chinese):Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck wanted to bring their sons on a trip. However before their departure, Donald Duck got a toothache, and was sent to the hospital. Eventually, Mickey Mouse took Donald Duck’s son but not his own son to the island.
Hezao Ke, [email protected]
TP
NP KMickey-Mouse
VP
PP
hospitalize DE time
travel
V’ c-command
doesn’t c-command
T’AspP
Asp’
atP NP
take-ASPV
VP
VP
sonNP
V’
PPV
V’
to island
VP
VDonald-Duck
