Binding (Chomsky 1981) Bound anaphors non-pronominal [no antecedent] marked argumentJohn a possible antecedent pronominal ‘John feels he’s well-shaved’

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

1 First order theories (Chapter 1, Sections 1.4 – 1.5)

Advertisements

The basic question is still unanswered to my mind. - Which structures were already acquired before the wh-variants? What do Dutch children (in a V-2 nd.

Principle B and Phonologically Reduced Pronouns in Child English Jeremy Hartman Yasutada Sudo Ken Wexler.

BBN-ANG-253 Advanced Syntax Lecture Course Autumn, 2014/15

Week 6. The Trouble With Principle B GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory.

Some non-recursive tricks. The Lambda expression. More on Let, Let*, apply and funcall.

Null complementizers Sept. 21, 2012 – Day 11 Introduction to Syntax ANTH 3590/7590 Harry Howard Tulane University.

Lexical Functional Grammar History: –Joan Bresnan (linguist, MIT and Stanford) –Ron Kaplan (computational psycholinguist, Xerox PARC) –Around 1978.

NP Movement Passives, Raising: When NPs are not in their theta positions.

English Simple Perfect Tenses

Language and Cognition Colombo, June 2011 Day 2 Introduction to Linguistic Theory, Part 4.

Linguistic Theory Lecture 7 About Nothing. Nothing in grammar Language often contains irregular paradigms where one or more expected forms are absent.

Week 3a. UG and L2A: Background, principles, parameters CAS LX 400 Second Language Acquisition.

Lecture 11: Binding and Reflexivity.  Pronouns differ from nouns in that their reference is determined in context  The reference of the word dog is.

Installment 11a. Loose ends about A-movement (Chapter 8) CAS LX 522 Syntax I.

October 8, : Grammars and Lexicons Lori Levin (Examples from Kroeger)

Linguistic Theory Lecture 8 Meaning and Grammar. A brief history In classical and traditional grammar not much distinction was made between grammar and.

University of Alberta6/3/20151 Governing Category and Coreference Dekang Lin Department of Computing Science University of Alberta.

Week 5a. Binding theory CAS LX 522 Syntax I. Structural ambiguity John said that Bill slipped in the kitchen. John said that Bill slipped in the kitchen.

Week 5b.  -Theory (with a little more binding theory) CAS LX 522 Syntax I.

June 7th, 2008TAG+91 Binding Theory in LTAG Lucas Champollion University of Pennsylvania

Computational Intelligence 696i Language Lecture 4 Sandiway Fong.

How can a 2-year old child decide about the underlying order in his mother’s syntax? General Problem: How do you find out about the shifting parallels.

‘Delay of Principle B’: The issue There is experimental evidence that children sometimes overrule principle B, whereas they do not overrule Principle A.

Episode 4a. Binding Theory, NPIs, c- command, ditransitives, and little v CAS LX 522 Syntax I.

Speech sounds and understanding (matter and mind) are related by (a language specific) grammar and lexicon speech sounds (MATTER) parser knowledge of the.

Week 14b. PRO and control CAS LX 522 Syntax I. It is likely… This satisfies the EPP in both clauses. The main clause has Mary in SpecIP. The embedded.

D all these/those some we this/that -- D all men these/those men some men we men this/that man our man the man every man may hit the ball Postal (1968)

1 Binding Sharon Armon-Lotem. 2 John i shaved himself i 1.John likes himself 2.John likes him 3.He likes John 4.*Himself likes John 5.John thinks that.

Emergence of Syntax. Introduction  One of the most important concerns of theoretical linguistics today represents the study of the acquisition of language.

Language and Thought.

Syntax Lecture 8: Verb Types 1. Introduction We have seen: – The subject starts off close to the verb, but moves to specifier of IP – The verb starts.

Differential effects of constraints in the processing of Russian cataphora Kazanina and Phillips 2010.

Episode 4a. Binding Theory, NPIs, c- command. 4.3 CAS LX 522 Syntax I.

Binding Theory Describing Relationships between Nouns.

Local and Long- Distance Reflexives in Uzbek Kamola Azimova.

1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 24, April 3, 2007.

1 Predicate (Relational) Logic 1. Introduction The propositional logic is not powerful enough to express certain types of relationship between propositions.

An experimental investigation of referential/non-referential asymmetries in syntactic reconstruction akira omaki anastasia conroy jeffrey lidz Quantitative.

Albert Gatt LIN3021 Formal Semantics Lecture 4. In this lecture Compositionality in Natural Langauge revisited: The role of types The typed lambda calculus.

Revision.  Movements leave behind a phonologically null trace in all their extraction sites.

Rules, Movement, Ambiguity

1 Principles & Parameters Approach in Linguistics - IV Bibhuti Bhusan Mahapatra.

Unit 4 Week 2 Introducing Kinds of Pronouns. Kinds of Pronouns.

3 Phonology: Speech Sounds as a System No language has all the speech sounds possible in human languages; each language contains a selection of the possible.

7 Agreement, case and A-movement

Professor Ian Roberts having seen the two main types of rule systems (PS- rules/X’-theory and movement/transformational rules), we now.

1 Principles & Parameters Approach in Linguistics II Bibhuti Bhusan Mahapatra.

Coreferential Interpretations of Reflexives in Picture Noun Phrases: an Experimental Approach Micah Goldwater University of Texas at Austin Jeffrey T.

MENTAL GRAMMAR Language and mind. First half of 20 th cent. – What the main goal of linguistics should be? Behaviorism – Bloomfield: goal of linguistics.

Lec. 10.  In this section we explain which constituents of a sentence are minimally required, and why. We first provide an informal discussion and then.

Week 12. NP movement Text 9.2 & 9.3 English Syntax.

Child Syntax and Morphology

Non-finite forms of the verb

English Syntax Week 12. NP movement Text 9.2 & 9.3.

Syntax Lecture 9: Verb Types 1.

Statistical NLP: Lecture 3

Describing Relationships between Nouns

Part I: Basics and Constituency

Method of Language Definition

ENG 3306 Raising and Control I.

Binding theory.

Scoping and Binding of Variables

Members of Group Anjar Fatimah Avif Furoh L Mahraodatul Abidah

Linguistic Essentials

Traditional Grammar VS. Generative Grammar

Structure of a Lexicon Debasri Chakrabarti 13-May-19.

Presentation transcript:

Binding (Chomsky 1981) Bound anaphors non-pronominal [no antecedent] marked argumentJohn a possible antecedent pronominal ‘John feels he’s well-shaved’ [antecedent] John a necessary antecedent ‘ John believes himself well-shaved’ The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 1

Binding (Chomsky 1981) Bound anaphors Principle C marked Principle B argument Principle A The locality is the IP (binding domain) The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 2

Problem: Long and short reflexives (Dutch, Icelandic) 1.short reflexive a morphologically complex and stressable reflexive as co-argument, opposition (Dutch: zichzelf) 2.long reflexive a simple weak and non-stressable reflexive (Dutch: zich) no theta opposition is optional as co-argument Examples Eva zag de slang boven d’r (non-reflexive) zich (long reflexive) *zichzelf (short reflexive ) (Eve saw the snake above her(self)) The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 3

Binding (Chomsky 1981) The former Principle A and B distinguished between inside and outside of the binding domain IP (does not consider long reflexives) Anti-Subset: Blocking co-argument bound anaphorno co-argument free anaphor The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 4

Binding Anti Subset Principle: Blocking co-argument no co-argument superset: free pronoun subset: reflexive (enters superset) The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 5

Reinhart & Reuland (1993) if/than principles A PF syntactic predicate B LF semantic predicate (theta structure) This extends the notion co-argument to predicate- chain and allows for long reflexives. Long reflexives do not appear in English, but they are quite common in other languages. The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 6 reflexive marked argument co-reference

Reinhart & Reuland (1993): Rule I (Blocking principle) If the LF form with argument co-reference can be expressed by a reflexive, it is illegitimate to express it by a free anaphor The principle of Blocking is a far more general phenomenon The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 7

Blocking (DiScullio & Williams 1987) Blocking If there are two or more grammatical (PF) forms that express the same meaning (LF), choose for the lexically more specified one. Examples: a.brings blocks *does bring b.is blocks *bees (cf. ‘he frees the prisoners’) c.brought blocks *bringed d.himself blocks *him See: van Kampen (2003) for acquisition The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 8

Long reflexives a single main IP Co-arguments due to complex predicates unites several theta-assigners Dutchtilde boven(1 chain) Englishheld next to(no chain) Dutchliet kruipen naar(1 chain) Englishlet come to(no chain) The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 9

Long reflexives Example 1: Small clause *herself Eve i held a snake next to her i no predicative chain Eva i tilde de slang boven zich i uit  -role predicative chain, no  -role opposition (Eve lifted the snake above zich up) The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 10

Long reflexives Example 2: ACI (ECM) complement  -role Eva i liet [ de slang naar zich i toe kruipen] predicative chain, no  -role opposition (Eve i let the snake to zich i crawl) Eve i let the snake come to her i no predicative chain The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 11

Acquisition of anaphors What has all of this to do with language acquisition? A lot Are free anaphors acquired before reflexives in English and Dutch? Are long reflexives acquired after long chains in Dutch? What drives the acquisition of long reflexives in Dutch/German? Why does that fail in English? The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 12