1. A Memory-Based Account of Linear Order Effects in English TAKAHASHI, Kei The University of Tokyo kei-ta@phiz.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp ISHIKAWA, Kiyoshi Hosei University kiyoshi@i.hosei.ac.jp

2. 1.Introduction sentences hierarchical structure linear Order A memory-based processing model

3. 2 Background 2.1 Data A grammar-based account (1)a.*Ken was thinking about [that he was stupid]. b. [That Ken was wrong], Ken was thinking about. Lexically, Prepositions reject that- clauses as their complements LFG analysis in terms of GF

4. 2 Background 2.1 Data A LFG account (1)a. Ken was thinking about [that …] b. [That …], Ken was thinking about. conditions (i) The complement of “about” must be mapped to OBJ (ii) that-clause must be mapped to TOP/FOC etc. (i) Cannot mapped to OBJ (ii) The value of OBJ is null (i) that-clause is mapped to TOP (ii) OBJ co-shares its value with TOP unacceptable acceptable No attention is paid to linear order

5. 2 Background 2.2 Problems Problem 1: complement coordination (2)a. *Ken was thinking about [that he was wrong] and [his girlfriend]. b. Ken was thinking about [his girlfriend] and [that he was wrong].

6. 2 Background 2.2 Problems *…about [that he was wrong] and [his girlfriend] …about [his girlfriend] and [that he was wrong] (2a-b) share one and the same f-structure  fails in predicting the contrast between (2a) and (2b) How LFG analyzes coordination ? –Conjuncts are integrated as a set  One and the same analysis for (2a-b) XP ( ↓ ∋ ↑ ) and XP ( ↓ ∋ ↑ ) XP

7. 2 Background 2.2 Problems Problem 2: Right Node Raising (3)a. *John denied, but Ken agreed, with [that Mike was wrong]. b. Ken agreed with, but John denied, [that Mike was wrong].

8. 2 Background 2.3 An Observational Generalization The Linear Order Effect: The syntactic requirement imposed by the head on an argument is effective only to the extent that the argument is “near enough” to the head in linear order.

9. 2 Background 2.3 An Observational Generalization The Linear Order Effect (1)a.*… about [that he was wrong] b. [That he was wrong], … about. near enough  requirements imposed not near enough  requirements not imposed

10. 2 Background 2.3 An Observational Generalization The Linear Order Effect (2)a.*…about [that he was wrong] and [his girlfriend] b. …about [his girlfriend] and [that he was wrong] near enough  requirements imposed near enough  requirements imposed not near enough  requirements not imposed not near enough  requirements not imposed

11. 2 Background 2.3 An Observational Generalization The Linear Order Effect (3)a. *John denied, but Ken agreed with [that Mike was wrong]. b. Ken agreed with, but John denied [that Mike was wrong]. near enough  imposes requirements not near enough  requirements not imposed near enough  imposes requirements not near enough  requirements not imposed

12. 2 Background 2.3 An Observational Generalization The Linear Order Effect –Insertion (4)a. *Ken was thinking about [that he was wrong]. (=(1a)) b. ?Ken was thinking about (PAUSE) [that he was wrong]. c. Ken was thinking about, by the way, [that he was wrong]. a grammar-based account cannot capture the contrast

13. 3 The Memory-based Account 3.1 The General Idea Syntactic information is expelled once the meaning is obtained –Syntactic information is necessary only to obtain the semantic content –The capacity of working memory is severely limited syntactic Information semantic content WM

14. 3 The Memory-based Account 3.2 Model The Memory-based Model: Syntactic information is expelled or decayed (i) as soon as the semantic predicate-argument structure is assumed to have been constructed or (ii) by the passage of time

15. 3 The Memory-based Account 3.2 Model Process (ex) The boy kissed the girl. The boy kissedthe girl NP KISS (, ) VP S NP “the boy” “the girl” X y predicate-argument structure syntactic structure

16. 4 Demonstration 4.1 Topicalization That he was wrong...... thinkingabout SS S regulated only by semantic constraints Syntactic information is expelled by passage of time

17. 4 Demonstration 4.2 Complement Coordination P abouthis girlfriend NP PP andthat he was wrong conj that-clause XP The reconstructed the structure syntactic constraints are imposed syntactic information is expelled only semantic constraints are imposed

18. 4 Demonstration 4.3 RNR John agreed withbut Mary deniedthat Ken might be wrong. syntactic information is expelled by passage of time only semantic constraints are imposed syntactic constraints are imposed

19. 4 Demonstration 4.4 Insertion pause ?Ken was thinking aboutthat he was wrong. PAUSE only semantic constraints are imposed syntactic information is deactivated modifier Ken was thinking about that he was wrong. by the way only semantic constraints are imposed syntactic information is deactivated

20. 5. Remaining problems (and future tasks) Subject coordination –(6)a. Either she or you are wrong. b. *Either she or you is wrong. Pronouns –(7) *John was thinking about {me/her/ him/it}, and that he was lonely Deactivation degree –To what extent is the information deactivated ? –What kind of information precisely expelled ? Judgment variation

21. 6 Conclusion A linear order effect not amenable to a grammar-based account A uniform processing account of the linear order effect

22. スライドはここまで です 以下は削ったページの墓場です。

23. 2 Background 2.2 Problems How LFG analyzes coordination ? –Conjuncts are integrated as a set (Kaplan & Maxwell Ⅲ, 1998) XP ( ↓ ∋ ↑ ) andXP ( ↓ ∋ ↑ ) XP

24. 2 Background 2.1 Data LFG account –PS rule: PP → P, XP –GF-POS mapping: –Functional uncertainty: ( ↑ GF1 GF2) = ( ↑ GF3) that-clause can be the complement of about “Ken”  SUBJ “that…”  TOP ( ↑ OBLof OBJ) = ( ↑ TOP)

25. 2 Background 2.1 Data that -clause cannot be realyzed as OBJ (1a) Ken was thinking about [that he was wrong]

26. 2 Background 2.1 Data (1b) [That he was wrong], Ken was thinking about ( ↑ OBJ of OBJ) = ( ↑ TOP)