Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:14:59.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Left edge topics in Russian and the processing of anaphoric dependencies1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2014

MARIA POLINSKY  and
ERIC POTSDAM
MARIA POLINSKY*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
ERIC POTSDAM*
Affiliation:
University of Florida
*
Authors' addresses: (Polinsky) Department of Linguistics, Boylston Hall Third Floor, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA[email protected]
(Potsdam) Linguistics Department, P.O. Box 115454, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the cost of processing syntactic versus extra-syntactic dependencies. The results support the hypothesis that syntactic dependencies require less processing effort than discourse-derived dependencies do (Reuland 2001, 2011; Koornneef 2008). The point is made through the analysis of a novel paradigm in Russian in which a preposed nominal stranding a numeral can show number connectivity (paucal) with a gap following the numeral or can appear in a non-agreeing (plural) form, as in cathedral-paucal/plural, there were three.paucal __. Numerous syntactic diagnostics confirm that when there is number connectivity, the nominal has been fronted via A′-movement, creating a syntactic A′-chain dependency. In the absence of connectivity, the construction involves a hanging topic related via discourse mechanisms to a base-generated null pronoun. The constructions constitute a minimal pair and Reuland's proposals correctly predict that the A′-movement construction will require less processing effort compared to the hanging topic construction. A self-paced reading study for contrasting pairs as in the above example showed a statistically significant slow-down after the gap with the hanging topic as opposed to the moved nominal. We take this to support the claim that a syntactic A′-chain is more easily processed than an anaphoric dependency involving a null pronoun, which must be resolved by discourse-based mechanisms.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , November 2014 , pp. 627 - 669
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

We are grateful to John Bailyn, Ivano Caponigro, Brian Dillon, Lyn Frazier, Tania Ionin, Ora Matushansky, Barbara Partee, Colin Phillips, Nina Radkevich, Greg Scontras, Irina Sekerina, Yakov Testelets, Ming Xiang, and three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for a helpful discussion of this project. We would also like to thank Elena Beshenkova, Vladimir Borschev, Boris Dralyuk, Irina Dubinina, Tania Ionin, Oksana Laleko, Anna Mikhaylova, Elena Muravenko, Alexander Nikolaev, Alfia Rakova, Sol Polinsky, Alex Yanovsky, and Marina Zelenina for their help with Russian judgments. All errors are our responsibility.

The work presented here was supported in part by funding from the Davis Center at Harvard University, the Heritage Language Resource Center at UCLA, and the United States Government to the first author. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any agency or entity of the United States Government.

The following glossing abbreviations are used: coll = collective, part = partitive, pauc = paucal. Other abbreviations follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules.

References

REFERENCES

Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68.1, 43–80.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2006. Left Dislocation (including CLLD). In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. II, 668–699. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1994. Clitic dependencies in Modern Greek. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Salzburg.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1997. Clitic Left Dislocation and Contrastive Left Dislocation. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 151–192.Google Scholar
Elena, Anagnostopoulou, van Riemsdijk, Henk & Zwarts, Frans (eds.). 1997. Materials on Left Dislocation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas & Choueiri, Lina. 2010. The syntax of Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph & Choueiri, Lina. 2000. Epithets. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18, 1–39.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John F[rederick]. 1995. Underlying phrase structure and short verb movement in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 3.1, 13–58.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John Frederick 2001. On scrambling: A reply to Bošković and Takahashi. Linguistic Inquiry 32.4, 635–658.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John Frederick. 2003. Does Russian scrambling exist? In Karimi, Simin (ed.), Word order and scrambling, 156–176. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John F[rederick] 2007. A derivational approach to micro-variation in Slavic binding. In Compton, et al. (eds.), 25–41.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John Frederick. 2012. The syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John F[rederick] & Nevins, Andrew. 2008. Russian genitive plurals are impostors. In Bachrach, Asaf & Nevins, Andrew (eds.), Inflectional identity, 237–270. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benincà, Paola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. Topic, focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In Rizzi, Luigi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2, 52–75. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2006. Case and agreement with genitive of quantification in Russian. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Agreement systems, 99–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko & Franks, Steven. 2000. Across the board movement and LF. Syntax 3.2, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boston, Marisa F., Hale, John T., Vasishth, Shravan & Kliegl, Reinhold. 2011. Parallel processing and sentence comprehension difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 26.3, 301–349.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, Petra. 2005. The syntax–discourse interface: Representing and interpreting dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo. 2000. Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus 12.1, 93–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2, 303–351.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Choo, Suk-hoon, Hong, Jun-hee & Hwang, Ji-young. 2007. Genitive-initial sentences in Russian and the typology of case assignment. Language and Linguistics 40, 153–174.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1977. The movement nature of Left Dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 8.2, 397–411.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A″-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1997[1983]. ‘Topic’ constructions in some European languages and ‘connectedness’. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 93–118.Google Scholar
Compton, Richard, Goledzinowska, Magdalena & Savchenko, Ulyana (eds.). 2007. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15: The Toronto Meeting 2006. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Crockett, Dina. 1976. Agreement in contemporary Standard Russian. Cambridge, MA: Slavica.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 2001. Parasitic gaps: A history. In Culicover, & Postal, (eds.), 3–68.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Postal, Paul M. (eds.). 2001. Parasitic gaps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Cat, Cecile. 2007. French dislocation: Interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1983. Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy 6.1, 5–34.Google Scholar
Escobar, Linda. 1997. Clitic Left Dislocation and other relatives. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 233–274.Google Scholar
Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11.2, 337–362.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Frisch, Stefan. 2006. Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In Fanselow, Gisbert, Féry, Caroline, Schlesewsky, Matthias & Vogel, Robert (eds.), Gradience in grammar, 291–316. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1992. A prominence constraint on null operator constructions. Lingua 88.1, 1–20.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1993. On parallelism in across-the-board dependencies. Linguistic Inquiry 24.3, 509–529.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn & Clifton, Charles. 2000. On bound variable interpretations: The LF-only hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29.2, 125–139.Google Scholar
Grebenyova, Lydia. 2006. Sluicing and the nature of encoding grammatical violations. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 25–38.Google Scholar
Grebenyova, Lydia. 2007. Sluicing in Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 15.1, 49–80.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther. 2008. The left clausal periphery: Clitic Left Dislocation in Italian and Left Dislocation in German. In Shaer, Benjamin, Cook, Philippa, Frey, Werner & Maienborn, Claudia (eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse: Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives, 49–94. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef & Reinhart, Tanya. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24.1, 69–101.Google Scholar
Harstuiker, Robert, Schriefers, Herbert, Bock, Kathryn & Kikstra, Gerdien. 2003. Morphophonological influences on the construction of subject–verb agreement. Memory and Cognition 31.8, 1316–1326.Google Scholar
Hirotani, Masako, Frazier, Lyn & Rayner, Keith. 2006. Punctuation and intonation effects on clause and sentence wrap-up: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 54.3, 425–443.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, Paul. 1997[1974]. On the source of lefthand NPs in French. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 151–192.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
House, Richard. 1982. The use of genitive initial sentences for the specification of quantity in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Ivlieva, Natalia. 2007. Parasitic gaps in Russian. In Compton, et al. (eds.), 132–140.Google Scholar
Kasai, Hironobu. 2004. Two notes on ATB movement. Language and Linguistics 5, 167–188.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin. 1997. Sintaksičeskie ograničenija i puti ix ob″jasnenija (na materiale dagestanskix jazykov). Ph.D. dissertation (Kandidatskja dissertacija), Moscow State University.Google Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway. 1995. Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Koornneef, Arnout. 2008. Eye-catching anaphora. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Lau, Ellen, Stroud, Clare, Plesch, Silke & Phillips, Colin. 2006. The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language 98.1, 74–88.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger, Gibson, Edward & Fedorenko, Evelina. 2008. Expectation-based processing of extraposed structures in English. Poster presented at the 2008 CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Lopez, Luis. 2009. A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Don C. 1984. An evaluation of subject-paced reading tasks and other methods for investigating immediate processes in reading. In Kieras, David & Just, Martin (eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research, 69–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Don C. 2004. On-line methods in language processing: Introduction and historical review. In Carreiras, Manuel & Clifton, Charles E. (eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP and beyond, 15–32. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Molinaro, Nicola, Barber, Horacio & Carreiras, Manuel. 2011. Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex 47.8, 908–930.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara & Borschev, Vladimir. 2006. Information structure, perspectival structure, diathesis alternation, and the Russian genitive of negation. The Ninth Symposium on Logic and Language (LoLa 9), 120–129. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Piñango, Maria & Burkhardt, Petra. 2005. Pronominal interpretation and the syntax–discourse interface: Real time comprehension and neurological properties. In Branco, Antonio, McEnery, Tony & Mitkov, Ruslan (eds.), Anaphora processing: Linguistic cognitive and computational modeling, 221–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria, Gomez-Gallo, Carlos, Graff, Peter & Kravtchenko, Ekaterina. 2012. Subject preference and ergativity. Lingua 122.3, 267–277.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 2001. Further lacunae in the English parasitic gap paradigm. In Culicover, & Postal, (eds.), 223–249.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24.4, 657–720.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32.3, 439–492.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar: A handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Rozental’, Ditmar. 1994. Russkaja orfografija i punktuacija, 2nd edn. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 2004. The syntax of (in)dependence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 2008. Coconstrual and narrow syntax. Syntax 11.3, 330–355.Google Scholar
Santi, Andrea & Grodzinsky, Yosef. 2012. Broca's area and sentence comprehension: A relationship parasitic on dependency, displacement or predictability? Neuropsychologia 50.5, 821–832.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Petra, Piñango, Maria, Ruigendijk, Esther & Avrutin, Sergey. 2010. Reference assignment in Dutch: Evidence for the syntax–discourse divide. Lingua 120.7, 1738–1763.Google Scholar
Sekerina, Irina. 1997. The syntax and processing of scrambling constructions in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Lewis & Hestvik, Arild. 1995. On-line comprehension of VP ellipsis: Syntactic reconstruction and the semantic influence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24.6, 517–532.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Lewis, Hestvik, Arild, Lesan, Lesli & Garcia, Rachel A.. 2003. Charting the time-course of VP-ellipsis sentence comprehension: Evidence for an initial and independent structural analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 49.1, 1–19.Google Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10.1, 80–126.Google Scholar
Sturgeon, Anne. 2008. The left periphery: The interaction of syntax, pragmatics and prosody in Czech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2006. Strong vs. weak islands. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. IV, 479–531. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Testelets, Jakov. 2001. Vvedenie v obščij sintaksis. Moscow: RGGU.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Ueno, Mieko & Garnsey, Susan M.. 2008. An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes 23.5, 646–688.Google Scholar
Valgina, Nina S. 1979. Russkaja punktuacija: Principy i naznačenie. Moscow: Prosveščenie.Google Scholar
van Gompel, Roger & Liversedge, Simon P.. 2003. The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29.1, 128–139.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1997. Left Dislocation. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 1–12.Google Scholar
van Riemsdjik, Henk & Zwarts, Frans. 1997 [1974]. Left Dislocation in Dutch and status of copying rules. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 13–30.Google Scholar
Vasić, Nada. 2006. Pronoun comprehension in agrammatic aphasia: The structure and use of linguistic knowledge. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Vasishth, Shravan. 2003. Working memory in sentence comprehension: Processing Hindi center embeddings. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Vat, Jan. 1997 [1981]. Left Dislocation, connectedness, and reconstruction. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 67–92.Google Scholar
Wagers, Matthew W., Lau, Ellen F. & Phillips, Colin. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 61.2, 206–237.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1978. Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9.1, 31–43.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 1997. Parasitic operators in German left-dislocation. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 307–340.Google Scholar
Xiang, Ming, Harizanov, Boris, Polinsky, Maria & Kravtchenko, Ekaterina. 2011. Processing morphological ambiguity: An experimental investigation of Russian numerical phrases. Lingua 121.3, 548–560.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie. 1997. Contrastive dislocation in Dutch and Icelandic. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 119–150.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1968. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar