The Experts below are selected from a list of 4299 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Gerard Kempen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • syntactic structure assembly in human parsing a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar
    Cognition, 2000
    Co-Authors: Theo Vosse, Gerard Kempen
    Abstract:

    Abstract We present the design, implementation and simulation results of a psycholinguistic model of human syntactic processing that meets major empirical criteria. The parser operates in conjunction with a lexicalist grammar and is driven by syntactic information associated with heads of phrases. The dynamics of the model are based on competition by lateral inhibition (‘competitive inhibition’). Input words activate lexical frames (i.e. elementary trees anchored to input words) in the mental lexicon, and a network of candidate ‘unification links’ is set up between frame nodes. These links represent tentative attachments that are graded rather than all-or-none. Candidate links that, due to grammatical or ‘treehood’ constraints, are incompatible, compete for inclusion in the final syntactic tree by sending each other inhibitory signals that reduce the competitor's attachment strength. The outcome of these local and simultaneous competitions is controlled by dynamic parameters, in particular by the Entry Activation and the Activation Decay rate of syntactic nodes, and by the Strength and Strength Build-up rate of Unification links. In case of a successful parse, a single syntactic tree is returned that covers the whole input string and consists of lexical frames connected by winning Unification links. Simulations are reported of a significant range of psycholinguistic parsing phenomena in both normal and aphasic speakers of English: (i) various effects of linguistic complexity (single versus double, center versus right-hand self-embeddings of relative Clauses; the difference between relative Clauses with subject and object extraction; the contrast between a Complement Clause embedded within a relative Clause versus a relative Clause embedded within a Complement Clause); (ii) effects of local and global ambiguity, and of word-class and syntactic ambiguity (including recency and length effects); (iii) certain difficulty-of-reanalysis effects (contrasts between local ambiguities that are easy to resolve versus ones that lead to serious garden-path effects); (iv) effects of agrammatism on parsing performance, in particular the performance of various groups of aphasic patients on several sentence types.

  • syntactic structure assembly in human parsing a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar
    Cognition, 2000
    Co-Authors: Theo Vosse, Gerard Kempen
    Abstract:

    Abstract We present the design, implementation and simulation results of a psycholinguistic model of human syntactic processing that meets major empirical criteria. The parser operates in conjunction with a lexicalist grammar and is driven by syntactic information associated with heads of phrases. The dynamics of the model are based on competition by lateral inhibition (‘competitive inhibition’). Input words activate lexical frames (i.e. elementary trees anchored to input words) in the mental lexicon, and a network of candidate ‘unification links’ is set up between frame nodes. These links represent tentative attachments that are graded rather than all-or-none. Candidate links that, due to grammatical or ‘treehood’ constraints, are incompatible, compete for inclusion in the final syntactic tree by sending each other inhibitory signals that reduce the competitor's attachment strength. The outcome of these local and simultaneous competitions is controlled by dynamic parameters, in particular by the Entry Activation and the Activation Decay rate of syntactic nodes, and by the Strength and Strength Build-up rate of Unification links. In case of a successful parse, a single syntactic tree is returned that covers the whole input string and consists of lexical frames connected by winning Unification links. Simulations are reported of a significant range of psycholinguistic parsing phenomena in both normal and aphasic speakers of English: (i) various effects of linguistic complexity (single versus double, center versus right-hand self-embeddings of relative Clauses; the difference between relative Clauses with subject and object extraction; the contrast between a Complement Clause embedded within a relative Clause versus a relative Clause embedded within a Complement Clause); (ii) effects of local and global ambiguity, and of word-class and syntactic ambiguity (including recency and length effects); (iii) certain difficulty-of-reanalysis effects (contrasts between local ambiguities that are easy to resolve versus ones that lead to serious garden-path effects); (iv) effects of agrammatism on parsing performance, in particular the performance of various groups of aphasic patients on several sentence types.

Theo Vosse - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • syntactic structure assembly in human parsing a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar
    Cognition, 2000
    Co-Authors: Theo Vosse, Gerard Kempen
    Abstract:

    Abstract We present the design, implementation and simulation results of a psycholinguistic model of human syntactic processing that meets major empirical criteria. The parser operates in conjunction with a lexicalist grammar and is driven by syntactic information associated with heads of phrases. The dynamics of the model are based on competition by lateral inhibition (‘competitive inhibition’). Input words activate lexical frames (i.e. elementary trees anchored to input words) in the mental lexicon, and a network of candidate ‘unification links’ is set up between frame nodes. These links represent tentative attachments that are graded rather than all-or-none. Candidate links that, due to grammatical or ‘treehood’ constraints, are incompatible, compete for inclusion in the final syntactic tree by sending each other inhibitory signals that reduce the competitor's attachment strength. The outcome of these local and simultaneous competitions is controlled by dynamic parameters, in particular by the Entry Activation and the Activation Decay rate of syntactic nodes, and by the Strength and Strength Build-up rate of Unification links. In case of a successful parse, a single syntactic tree is returned that covers the whole input string and consists of lexical frames connected by winning Unification links. Simulations are reported of a significant range of psycholinguistic parsing phenomena in both normal and aphasic speakers of English: (i) various effects of linguistic complexity (single versus double, center versus right-hand self-embeddings of relative Clauses; the difference between relative Clauses with subject and object extraction; the contrast between a Complement Clause embedded within a relative Clause versus a relative Clause embedded within a Complement Clause); (ii) effects of local and global ambiguity, and of word-class and syntactic ambiguity (including recency and length effects); (iii) certain difficulty-of-reanalysis effects (contrasts between local ambiguities that are easy to resolve versus ones that lead to serious garden-path effects); (iv) effects of agrammatism on parsing performance, in particular the performance of various groups of aphasic patients on several sentence types.

  • syntactic structure assembly in human parsing a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar
    Cognition, 2000
    Co-Authors: Theo Vosse, Gerard Kempen
    Abstract:

    Abstract We present the design, implementation and simulation results of a psycholinguistic model of human syntactic processing that meets major empirical criteria. The parser operates in conjunction with a lexicalist grammar and is driven by syntactic information associated with heads of phrases. The dynamics of the model are based on competition by lateral inhibition (‘competitive inhibition’). Input words activate lexical frames (i.e. elementary trees anchored to input words) in the mental lexicon, and a network of candidate ‘unification links’ is set up between frame nodes. These links represent tentative attachments that are graded rather than all-or-none. Candidate links that, due to grammatical or ‘treehood’ constraints, are incompatible, compete for inclusion in the final syntactic tree by sending each other inhibitory signals that reduce the competitor's attachment strength. The outcome of these local and simultaneous competitions is controlled by dynamic parameters, in particular by the Entry Activation and the Activation Decay rate of syntactic nodes, and by the Strength and Strength Build-up rate of Unification links. In case of a successful parse, a single syntactic tree is returned that covers the whole input string and consists of lexical frames connected by winning Unification links. Simulations are reported of a significant range of psycholinguistic parsing phenomena in both normal and aphasic speakers of English: (i) various effects of linguistic complexity (single versus double, center versus right-hand self-embeddings of relative Clauses; the difference between relative Clauses with subject and object extraction; the contrast between a Complement Clause embedded within a relative Clause versus a relative Clause embedded within a Complement Clause); (ii) effects of local and global ambiguity, and of word-class and syntactic ambiguity (including recency and length effects); (iii) certain difficulty-of-reanalysis effects (contrasts between local ambiguities that are easy to resolve versus ones that lead to serious garden-path effects); (iv) effects of agrammatism on parsing performance, in particular the performance of various groups of aphasic patients on several sentence types.

Santos, Jazon Da Silva - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Ligação não-seletiva de subjuntivos : suas implicações na gramatica
    [s.n.], 2018
    Co-Authors: Santos, Jazon Da Silva
    Abstract:

    Orientador: Charlotte Chambelland GalvesDissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Estudos da LinguagemResumo: Este trabalho focaliza fenômenos lingüísticos existentes em Complementos oracionais que apresentam problemas para a Teoria da Gramática Gerativa, tanto no modelo de Princípios e Parâmetros como no Minimalista. Alguns Complementos expressos no modo subjuntivo mostram-se transparentes a elementos de sua oração matriz, como aqueles de verbos como querer, cujos sujeitos pronominais sofrem a restrição de serem disjuntos em referência do sujeito principal (efeito-SDR) - algo não previsto pelo princípio B da Teoria da Ligação (Chomsky, 1981/1993), já que tais orações, assim como as no indicativo, possuem tanto um SUJEITO acessível como um regente para o sujeito pronominal encaixado. Esses Complementos ainda exibem um quadro temporal aparentemente dependente do da oração principal. Ao invés de perseguir uma análise unificada para os dois fenômenos, argumento contra uma tal análise, relacionando o efeito-SDR a dois outros fenômenos: a possível extração-QU a partir dos Complementos citados e a partir de Complementos de verbos como achar, acreditar (estejam eles no subjuntivo ou no indicativo) mas não de Complementos de verbos como lamentar (também expressos no subjuntivo); e a possibilidade de operadores na principal "licenciarem" itens de polaridade (negativa) em Complementos de achar, acreditar (apenas se expressos no subjuntivo, no italiano e no espanhol), mas também não em Complementos de lamentar. A (direção para a) análise unificada desses três fatos, proposta neste estudo, baseia-se no tratamento dos tempos subjuntivos como indefinidos que, assim como suas contrapartes nominais (os NP indefinidos), precisam ser ligados por algum operador, visto que indefinidos correspondem a variáveis livres em níveis semânticos (Lewis, 1975; Heim, 1981; Diesing, 1992). Com base na semântica dos Complementos estudados, sugiro a existência de diferentes COMPs: quando estes se constituem, em operadores capazes de ligar o subjuntivo, o Complemento apresenta um comportamento de oração independente, no sentido em que não se mostra transparente a elementos da principal, ou apenas se mostram parcialmente transparentes. Quando não há um desses COMPs disponível, algum elemento na principal liga o subjuntivo, fazendo com que o domínio de ligação de um pronome seja extendido, e ainda permitindo que itens polares no Complemento possam ser licenciados por elementos principais e que elementos-QU sejam extraídosAbstract: This work focuses on linguistic phenomena in sentential Complements that present problems for the Generativist Grammar Theory, for both Principles and Parameters and Minimalist models. Some Complements spelled out in the subjunctive mood are transparent for elements in their main Clauses, such as those of verbs as querer (wish), whose pronominals subjects must be disjoint in reference from the main subject (restriction refered to as SDR-effect). This is not predicted by principle B of Binding Theory (Chomsky, 1981/1993), since these sentences, just as those expressed in the indicative mood, display both an accessible SUBJECT and a governor for their subject. Furthermore, these Complements show a temporal frame apparently dependent on the main Clause one. Instead of trying a unified analysis for these two phenomena, largue against such an analysis, relating the SDR-effect to other two phenomena: 1) the possible WH-extractions from the just refered Complements and also from the indicative and subjunctive Complements of verbs as achar (thinklconsider), acreditar (believe), and 2) the possibility of main operators to license (negative) polarity items in these same Complements, but only when expressed in the subjunctive. Crucially, these two phenomena are not found in Complements of verbs as lamentar even though they also are expressed in the subjunctive mood. The (direction for a) unified analysis for these three facts, which I propose in this study, is based on the treatment of subjunctives as indefinite tenses which, parallel to their nominal counterparts (the indefinite NPs), must be bound for some operator, for indefinites correspond to free variables in semantic levels (Lewis, 1975; Heim, 1981; Diesing, 1992). Then, based on the semantics of the studied Complements, I suggest the existence of different COMPs: when they can bind the subjunctive, the Complement Clause behaves like an independent Clause, in the sense that it is not transparent to elements in the main Clause, or sometimes only partially transparent. When there is no such a COMP available, some element binds the subjunctive from the mam Clause, extending the binding domain of pronouns and allowing embedded polarity items licensed by main operators and WH-extractionMestradoMestre em Linguístic

Jazon Da Silva Santos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Ligação não-seletiva de subjuntivos : suas implicações na gramatica
    2017
    Co-Authors: Jazon Da Silva Santos
    Abstract:

    Resumo: Este trabalho focaliza fenômenos lingüísticos existentes em Complementos oracionais que apresentam problemas para a Teoria da Gramática Gerativa, tanto no modelo de Princípios e Parâmetros como no Minimalista. Alguns Complementos expressos no modo subjuntivo mostram-se transparentes a elementos de sua oração matriz, como aqueles de verbos como querer, cujos sujeitos pronominais sofrem a restrição de serem disjuntos em referência do sujeito principal (efeito-SDR) - algo não previsto pelo princípio B da Teoria da Ligação (Chomsky, 1981/1993), já que tais orações, assim como as no indicativo, possuem tanto um SUJEITO acessível como um regente para o sujeito pronominal encaixado. Esses Complementos ainda exibem um quadro temporal aparentemente dependente do da oração principal. Ao invés de perseguir uma análise unificada para os dois fenômenos, argumento contra uma tal análise, relacionando o efeito-SDR a dois outros fenômenos: a possível extração-QU a partir dos Complementos citados e a partir de Complementos de verbos como achar, acreditar (estejam eles no subjuntivo ou no indicativo) mas não de Complementos de verbos como lamentar (também expressos no subjuntivo); e a possibilidade de operadores na principal "licenciarem" itens de polaridade (negativa) em Complementos de achar, acreditar (apenas se expressos no subjuntivo, no italiano e no espanhol), mas também não em Complementos de lamentar. A (direção para a) análise unificada desses três fatos, proposta neste estudo, baseia-se no tratamento dos tempos subjuntivos como indefinidos que, assim como suas contrapartes nominais (os NP indefinidos), precisam ser ligados por algum operador, visto que indefinidos correspondem a variáveis livres em níveis semânticos (Lewis, 1975; Heim, 1981; Diesing, 1992). Com base na semântica dos Complementos estudados, sugiro a existência de diferentes COMPs: quando estes se constituem, em operadores capazes de ligar o subjuntivo, o Complemento apresenta um comportamento de oração independente, no sentido em que não se mostra transparente a elementos da principal, ou apenas se mostram parcialmente transparentes. Quando não há um desses COMPs disponível, algum elemento na principal liga o subjuntivo, fazendo com que o domínio de ligação de um pronome seja extendido, e ainda permitindo que itens polares no Complemento possam ser licenciados por elementos principais e que elementos-QU sejam extraídos.Abstract: This work focuses on linguistic phenomena in sentential Complements that present problems for the Generativist Grammar Theory, for both Principles and Parameters and Minimalist models. Some Complements spelled out in the subjunctive mood are transparent for elements in their main Clauses, such as those of verbs as querer (wish), whose pronominals subjects must be disjoint in reference from the main subject (restriction refered to as SDR-effect). This is not predicted by principle B of Binding Theory (Chomsky, 1981/1993), since these sentences, just as those expressed in the indicative mood, display both an accessible SUBJECT and a governor for their subject. Furthermore, these Complements show a temporal frame apparently dependent on the main Clause one. Instead of trying a unified analysis for these two phenomena, largue against such an analysis, relating the SDR-effect to other two phenomena: 1) the possible WH-extractions from the just refered Complements and also from the indicative and subjunctive Complements of verbs as achar (thinklconsider), acreditar (believe), and 2) the possibility of main operators to license (negative) polarity items in these same Complements, but only when expressed in the subjunctive. Crucially, these two phenomena are not found in Complements of verbs as lamentar even though they also are expressed in the subjunctive mood. The (direction for a) unified analysis for these three facts, which I propose in this study, is based on the treatment of subjunctives as indefinite tenses which, parallel to their nominal counterparts (the indefinite NPs), must be bound for some operator, for indefinites correspond to free variables in semantic levels (Lewis, 1975; Heim, 1981; Diesing, 1992). Then, based on the semantics of the studied Complements, I suggest the existence of different COMPs: when they can bind the subjunctive, the Complement Clause behaves like an independent Clause, in the sense that it is not transparent to elements in the main Clause, or sometimes only partially transparent. When there is no such a COMP available, some element binds the subjunctive from the mam Clause, extending the binding domain of pronouns and allowing embedded polarity items licensed by main operators and WH-extraction

An ,van Linden - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Revisiting ‘it-extraposition’: The historical development of constructions with matrices (it)/(there) be + NP followed by a Complement Clause
    2019
    Co-Authors: Davidse Kristin, An ,van Linden
    Abstract:

    This article traces the historical development of Complement constructions with matrices containing be + NP with wonder as well as those containing be + tweo/doubt, and proposes an analysis of them at two levels of generality. At the meso-constructional level, all the forms of (it/that) + be + wundor are analysed as historical variants of a predicative matrix and those with (of that) + (it/there) + be + tweo as historical variants of an existential Clause. At the macro-constructional level, we argue that the two meso-constructions share the same schematic functional and structural components, which is evidenced by the fact that they both allow for comparable lexical and grammatical readings, and that the latter readings have the same paradigmatic variants, viz. parentheticals and discursively juxtaposed independent sentences. In view of this we posit a single macro-construction, with matrix and Complement Clause as the primary structural units. We thus propose a different analysis for the subtype with predicative matrix than the traditional it-extraposition account, which treats the that-Clause as the extraposed subject of the whole construction, and views subject extraposition as a phenomenon sui generis. Against this, our analysis “respects the overt form” (Langacker 1991: 69) which the existential and predicative matrices and their Complement Clause have had through their whole history, and proposes semantics naturally coded by this form.Peer reviewe

  • Miracles and mirativity: Lexical versus grammatical uses of wonder, marvel, and surprise
    2019
    Co-Authors: Brems Lieselotte, An ,van Linden
    Abstract:

    This paper focusses on constructions with nouns that denote something unexpected or astonishing. Specifically, it will compare constructions with marvel (1) and surprise (2) with those with wonder (3)-(4), which have been described in Van linden et al. (2016) and Gentens et al. (2016). The paper concentrates on constructions with Complement Clauses, cf. (1)-(4), and distinguishes between lexical vs. grammatical uses of Complement-taking predicate (CTP) Clauses (cf. Boye & Harder 2007). (1) So drastic a series of atrocities worried even Lord Burleigh, who compared them with the much-condemned Spanish activities in the Low Countries: “as things be altered it is no marvel the people have rebellions here, for the Flemings had not so much cause to rebel by the oppression of the Spaniards, as is reported to the Irish people” (WB) (2) Tyson soon integrated into that environment and the authorities misguidedly believed he was being rehabilitated thanks to boxing. And it was no surprise when Tyson was released early to go to live with D'Amato permanently. (WB) (3) It is a wonder to me that no one is laughing at the silly boots, but I suppose they have other worries at the moment, and so do I. (WB) (4) After all the scaremongering since September 11 regarding good versus evil, with us or with the terrorists, it is no wonder Arab-phobia has hit new heights. (WB) In (4), it is no wonder functions as a mirative qualifier, commenting on the Complement proposition in terms of its (un)expectedness (cf. DeLancey 2001). Its meaning can be paraphrased by an expectation adverb such as of course (Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007: 172). The speaker’s lack of surprise about the proposition Arab-phobia has hit new heights is justified by the after-PP. While the CTP-Clause thus serves a grammatical (attitudinal and discourse-organizational) function (Gentens et al. 2016) in (4), in (3) it expresses lexical meaning. The CTP-Clause it is a wonder to me conveys that the speaker is very surprised, with the that-Clause containing the presupposed factive proposition that s/he is surprised about (cf. Davidse & Van linden Forthc.). In (2), it was no surprise expresses the speaker’s lack of surprise about the proposition in the when-Complement. Note, however, that – unlike in (4) – this expression of lack of surprise is discourse-primary (e.g. it can be ‘addressed’ by ‘how much of a surprise was it?’) and thus shows lexical use (cf. Boye & Harder 2007). In (1) it is no marvel functions as a mirative qualifier in a rhetorical scheme similar to (4). Using the British subcorpora of the Wordbanks Online corpus (WB), we will analyse 250 concordances of (no) marvel and surprise + Complement Clause, aiming for a qualitative and quantitative comparison with (no) wonder constructions (e.g. lexical vs. grammatical use, matrix predicate types (it BE/COME…), rhetorical schemata). In this way we hope to get a more fine-grained view of what seems to be a mirative paradigm in present-day English. References Boye, K. and P. Harder. 2007. Complement-taking Predicates: Usage and Linguistic Structure. Studies in Language, 31: 569–606. Davidse, Kristin & An Van linden. Forthcoming. Revisiting ‘it-extraposition’: The historical development of constructions with matrices (it)/(there) be + NP followed by a Complement Clause. In Paloma Núñez-Pertejo, María José López-Couso, Belén-Méndez Naya & Javier Pérez-Guerra (eds.), Crossing Linguistic Boundaries: Systemic, Synchronic and Diachronic Variation in English. London: Bloomsbury Academic. DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 369-382. Gentens, Caroline, Ditte Kimps, Kristin Davidse, Gilles Jacobs, An Van linden & Lot Brems. 2016. Mirativity and rhetorical structure: The development and prosody of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’ wonder. In Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.), Outside the Clause. Form and function of extra-clausal constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], 125-156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Simon-Vandenbergen & Karin Aijmer. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Van linden, An, Kristin Davidse & Lennart Matthijs. 2016. Miracles and mirativity: From lexical it’s a wonder to grammaticalised it’s no wonder in Old English. Leuvense Bijdragen – Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 99-100: 385-409. Corpus Collins Wordbanks Online corpus: https://wordbanks.harpercollins.co.uk/Peer reviewe

  • Miracles and mirativity: Lexical versus grammatical uses of wonder, marvel, and surprise
    2019
    Co-Authors: Brems Lieselotte, An ,van Linden
    Abstract:

    peer reviewedThis paper focusses on constructions with nouns that denote something unexpected or astonishing. Specifically, it will compare constructions with marvel (1) and surprise (2) with those with wonder (3)-(4), which have been described in Van linden et al. (2016) and Gentens et al. (2016). The paper concentrates on constructions with Complement Clauses, cf. (1)-(4), and distinguishes between lexical vs. grammatical uses of Complement-taking predicate (CTP) Clauses (cf. Boye & Harder 2007). (1) So drastic a series of atrocities worried even Lord Burleigh, who compared them with the much-condemned Spanish activities in the Low Countries: “as things be altered it is no marvel the people have rebellions here, for the Flemings had not so much cause to rebel by the oppression of the Spaniards, as is reported to the Irish people” (WB) (2) Tyson soon integrated into that environment and the authorities misguidedly believed he was being rehabilitated thanks to boxing. And it was no surprise when Tyson was released early to go to live with D'Amato permanently. (WB) (3) It is a wonder to me that no one is laughing at the silly boots, but I suppose they have other worries at the moment, and so do I. (WB) (4) After all the scaremongering since September 11 regarding good versus evil, with us or with the terrorists, it is no wonder Arab-phobia has hit new heights. (WB) In (4), it is no wonder functions as a mirative qualifier, commenting on the Complement proposition in terms of its (un)expectedness (cf. DeLancey 2001). Its meaning can be paraphrased by an expectation adverb such as of course (Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007: 172). The speaker’s lack of surprise about the proposition Arab-phobia has hit new heights is justified by the after-PP. While the CTP-Clause thus serves a grammatical (attitudinal and discourse-organizational) function (Gentens et al. 2016) in (4), in (3) it expresses lexical meaning. The CTP-Clause it is a wonder to me conveys that the speaker is very surprised, with the that-Clause containing the presupposed factive proposition that s/he is surprised about (cf. Davidse & Van linden Forthc.). In (2), it was no surprise expresses the speaker’s lack of surprise about the proposition in the when-Complement. Note, however, that – unlike in (4) – this expression of lack of surprise is discourse-primary (e.g. it can be ‘addressed’ by ‘how much of a surprise was it?’) and thus shows lexical use (cf. Boye & Harder 2007). In (1) it is no marvel functions as a mirative qualifier in a rhetorical scheme similar to (4). Using the British subcorpora of the Wordbanks Online corpus (WB), we will analyse 250 concordances of (no) marvel and surprise + Complement Clause, aiming for a qualitative and quantitative comparison with (no) wonder constructions (e.g. lexical vs. grammatical use, matrix predicate types (it BE/COME…), rhetorical schemata). In this way we hope to get a more fine-grained view of what seems to be a mirative paradigm in present-day English. References Boye, K. and P. Harder. 2007. Complement-taking Predicates: Usage and Linguistic Structure. Studies in Language, 31: 569–606. Davidse, Kristin & An Van linden. Forthcoming. Revisiting ‘it-extraposition’: The historical development of constructions with matrices (it)/(there) be + NP followed by a Complement Clause. In Paloma Núñez-Pertejo, María José López-Couso, Belén-Méndez Naya & Javier Pérez-Guerra (eds.), Crossing Linguistic Boundaries: Systemic, Synchronic and Diachronic Variation in English. London: Bloomsbury Academic. DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 369-382. Gentens, Caroline, Ditte Kimps, Kristin Davidse, Gilles Jacobs, An Van linden & Lot Brems. 2016. Mirativity and rhetorical structure: The development and prosody of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’ wonder. In Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.), Outside the Clause. Form and function of extra-clausal constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], 125-156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Simon-Vandenbergen & Karin Aijmer. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Van linden, An, Kristin Davidse & Lennart Matthijs. 2016. Miracles and mirativity: From lexical it’s a wonder to grammaticalised it’s no wonder in Old English. Leuvense Bijdragen – Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 99-100: 385-409. Corpus Collins Wordbanks Online corpus: https://wordbanks.harpercollins.co.uk/Negation and grammaticalization: The development of modal, polar and mirative meanings by expressions with 'no' need, 'no' wonder, 'no' chance and 'no' wa

  • Grammatical uses of 'no' + noun and the hierarchy of qualifications of SoAs
    2019
    Co-Authors: An ,van Linden, Brems Lieselotte, Davidse Kristin
    Abstract:

    peer reviewedThis paper focuses on a set of English clausal expressions containing the negative indefinite determiner no + noun, as in (1a)-(2a), and their adverbial counterparts, e.g. no wonder (1b), or elliptical variants of clausal expressions, e.g. no need (2b). Both structural types can be used to qualify States-of-Affairs (SoAs), in which case they show grammatical use rather than lexical use (cf. Boye & Harder 2012). In (1), both the clausal (1a) and the adverbial (1b) no wonder structures attitudinally qualify their propositions miratively (DeLancey 2001: 369) as wholly unsurprising, whilst in (2) the clausal and elliptical expressions with no need express a modal qualification of a state-of-affairs, viz. absence of necessity (Van linden et al. 2011). The other strings that will be studied are no chance (Van linden & Brems 2017, 2018), no way (Davidse et al. 2014) and no doubt (Davidse et al. 2015). (1) (a) It’s no wonder Norwegians hunt whale. There’s nothing else left to catch. (WB) (b) The relatives were very annoyed, no wonder, and it caused friction in the family (WB) (2) (a) Decker: Well, look. Why don't we reschedule for, say, Tuesday? Bill: Oh, there is no need to reschedule. We can just carry on while […]. (CASO) (b) Woman: She’s got a bit of a crisis on her hands right now. You want to keep holding? Jake: Uh -- tell you what -- no need. I’m sure she’s going to be on her way home soon, so just tell her that Jake called, ok? (Corpus of American Soap Operas) We will investigate which types of meaning the patterns express (lexical or grammatical? (see Boye & Harder (2012) for criteria); and if grammatical: which type?), and how these relate to (i) the formal type of Complement Clause in the case of the clausal structures, and (ii) the availability of adverbial or elliptical uses (the latter being variants of clausal structures). The hypotheses associated with these questions assume a functional analysis of the Clause (e.g. Hengeveld 1989), and relate to Nuyts’s (2005) functional hierarchy of state-of-affairs (SoA) qualifications. First we hypothesize that the distribution of to-infinitival Complements, which lack deictic tense marking and typically have no subject expressed with them (cf. Bolinger 1967: 351-9) is restricted to qualificational meanings that apply to potential SoAs, such as dynamic and deontic modality (cf. Verstraete 2007: 42-46; Van linden 2012: ch. 2); the to-Clause in (2a), for instance, refers to an unnecessary SoA (dynamic modality). By contrast, that-Clauses are not semantically restricted and can thus be used with strings whose qualificational meaning applies to propositions, such as epistemic and mirative meaning; examples like (3) suggest that the same goes for of-gerundial Complements, with (3) conveying epistemic meaning. (3) [They] may dream of a theocratic US, but there is no chance of this coming about. (WB) Second, we put forward that the level of Clause structure the qualificational meaning of the no + noun string applies to also determines the availability of adverbial or elliptical uses. When the qualificational meaning applies to propositions, the non-clausal counterparts function as adverbials, typically disjunct adverbials (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 615), featuring also positional flexibility (cf. (1b)) (Gentens et al. 2016). By contrast, when it applies to SoAs, the non-clausal counterparts are merely elliptical matrices (so in fact covertly clausal structures), which cannot shift position (cf. (2b)) (No need to keep holding; *to keep holding, no need). In such cases, the meaning of the (elliptical) matrix is assumed to be secondary to the SoA denoted in the Complement Clause (rather than to the discourse, as in (1b)), much like modal auxiliaries are (grammatically) secondary to their main verb. References Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. The imperative in English. In: Jakobson, R. (ed.), To Honor Roman Jakobson, 335–362. The Hague: MdG. Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder. 2012. Grammatical Status and Grammaticalization. Language 88: 1–44. Davidse, Kristin, An Van linden, Jacob Lesage & Lieselotte Brems. Negation, grammaticalization and subjectification: the development of polar, modal and mirative no way-constructions, ICEHL18, 14-18 July 2014, University of Leuven. Davidse, Kristin, Simon De Wolf & An Van linden. 2015. The development of (there/it is / I have) no doubt expressing modal and interactional meaning. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16 (1): 25-58.. DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 369-382. Gentens, Caroline, Ditte Kimps, Kristin Davidse, Gilles Jacobs, An Van linden & Lieselotte Brems. 2016. Mirativity and rhetorical structure: The development and prosody of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’ wonder. In Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.), Outside the Clause. Form and function of extra-clausal constituents, 125-156 [Studies in Language Companion Series 178]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hengeveld, Kees. 1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25: 127–157. Nuyts, Jan. 2005. The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In Alex Klinge and Henrik Høeg Müller (eds.), Modality: Studies in form and function. London: Equinox. 5–38. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Van linden, An. 2012. Modal adjectives: English deontic and evaluative constructions in diachrony and synchrony [Topics in English Linguistics 75]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Van linden, An, Kristin Davidse & Lieselotte Brems. Have/be no need: the interaction between negation and modality in verbonominal pathways of change. ICHL 20, Osaka, 25-30 July 2011. Van linden, An & Lieselotte Brems. 2017. Talmy’s “greater modal system”: fitting in verbo-nominal constructions with chance(s). Seventh International Conference of the French Association for Cognitive Linguistics (AFLiCo 7), University of Liège, 31 May – 3 June 2017. Van linden, An & Lieselotte Brems. 2018. It was chance’s chance to become polyfunctional in the modal domain. Twentieth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL20), University of Edinburgh, 27-31 August 2018. Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2007. Rethinking the coordinate-subordinate dichotomy: Interpersonal grammar and the analysis of adverbial Clauses in English [Topics in English Linguistics 55]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Negation and grammaticalization: The development of modal, polar and mirative meanings by expressions with 'no' need, 'no' wonder, 'no' chance and 'no' wa

  • No way and no chance as emphatic negative response items
    2018
    Co-Authors: Brems Lieselotte, An ,van Linden
    Abstract:

    peer reviewedPrevious research has shown that verbo-nominal patterns with semiotic nouns such as way, doubt and chance followed by a relative or Complement Clause are a locus of synchronic variation and diachronic change (Davidse, De Wolf & Van linden 2015, Gentens et al. 2016, Saad et al. 2012, Van linden & Brems 2018). In this presentation we want to focus on the adverbials no way and no chance (without relative or Complement Clause) as emphatic negative response items in the sense that they act as intensified variants of no (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 849). In addition, they also exceed the latter’s functional range by having modal-attitudinal inferences or basic meanings. Examples are in (1) and (2). (1a) “What do we do? Do we hike out downriver?” “No way,” Max answered firmly. (WB) (1b) “A hitchhiker!” said Ellie excitedly. “Yeah, no way,” said Julia. (WB) (2a) Did he blast the kick closer to Argentina keeper Pablo Cavallero than he intended? He grinned: “No chance! It was just as I had planned.” (WB) (2b) Smoove bring us this manic dance track. Hear it once and then try to get the “Hype! Hype!” chorus out of your head. No chance. (WB) In (1a) no way emphatically rejects hiking out downriver as an attractive proposal for a joint activity, whereas in (2b) it is not an intensified variant of no (see preceding yeah), but it functions as a mirative qualifier, expressing disbelief on behalf of the speaker. In (2a) no chance expresses strong speaker commitment to the impossibility of the kick having been unintentionally close to the keeper (epistemic meaning), which makes for an emphatic negative response to the preceding question. In (2b) no chance emphatically indicates the participant’s inability to get the song out of their head (dynamic meaning). Like in (1b), no + noun cannot be replaced by a ‘simple’ no. Using the Collins Wordbanks (WB) corpus we will analyse 100 synchronic examples for no chance and no way each. We will investigate to what extent they are true – intensified – variants of the negative particle no, and analyse the types of modal-attitudinal inferences or basic meanings they express, , including epistemic, deontic, dynamic and mirative shades of meaning. This analysis crucially takes into account the nature of the utterance the adverbial responds to (e.g. proposal for joint action in (1a) vs. exclamative (1b)). We thus aim to shed light on what seems to be a new set of emphatic negative response items (possibly including no doubt/fear/etc.) and on the way they enrich this category semantically and formally (cf. paradigmatic enrichment in author & Davidse 2010). References Brems, Lieselotte & Kristin Davidse. 2010. "Complex subordinators derived from noun Complement Clauses: grammaticalization and paradigmaticity" Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42 (1): 101-116. Davidse, Kristin Simon De Wolf & An Van linden. 2015. The development of the modal and discourse marker uses of (there/it is / I have) no doubt, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16 (2): 25-58. Davidse, Kristin, Lieselotte Brems, Jacob Lesage & An Van linden. 2014. Negation, grammaticalization and subjectification: the development of polar, modal and mirative no way-constructions, ICEHL18, 14-18 July 2014, University of Leuven. Gentens, Caroline, Ditte Kimps, Kristin Davidse, Gilles Jacobs, An Van linden & Lieselotte Brems. 2016. Mirativity and rhetorical structure: The development and prosody of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’ wonder. In Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.), Outside the Clause. Form and function of extra-clausal constituents, 125-156 [Studies in Language Companion Series 178]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saad, Khalida., Wouter Parmentier, Lieselotte Brems, Kristin Davidse & An Van linden. 2012. The development of modal, polar and mirative no way-constructions. ICAME 33, University of Leuven, 30 May-3 June 2012. Van linden, An & Lieselotte Brems. 2018. It was chance’s chance to become polyfunctional in the modal domain. Twentieth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL20), University of Edinburgh, 27-31 August 2018.Negation and grammaticalization. The development of modal, polar and mirative meanings by expressions with ‘no’ need, ‘no’ wonder, ‘no’ chance, ‘no’ way