在英语和法语中,基于话语的长距离依存关系约束在不同结构中具有普遍性

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Elodie Winckel , Anne Abeillé , Barbara Hemforth , Edward Gibson
{"title":"在英语和法语中,基于话语的长距离依存关系约束在不同结构中具有普遍性","authors":"Elodie Winckel ,&nbsp;Anne Abeillé ,&nbsp;Barbara Hemforth ,&nbsp;Edward Gibson","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The article presents four acceptability judgment experiments that evaluate novel predictions of the Focus-Background Conflict constraint (Abeillé et al. 2020, Cognition) with respect to the acceptability of long distance dependencies for so-called “subject islands” in English and French. In contrast with syntactic accounts, the Focus-Background Conflict constraint predicts differential behavior across different constructions. The current paper tests a novel prediction of this theory, in a construction that has not yet been tested experimentally: <em>it</em>-clefts. Experiment 1 shows that elements in clefted clauses are not uniformly backgrounded, contrary to a standard assumption in the syntax / discourse literature. Experiments 2–4 tested long-distance dependency relations in relative clauses and clefts. In both languages, there is strong evidence of a cross-construction difference when comparing the two constructions with each other: extraction of the subject complement out of a subject NP was super-additively difficult in clefts, but not in relative clauses, as predicted by the Focus-Background Conflict constraint.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"254 ","pages":"Article 105950"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discourse-based constraints on long-distance dependencies generalize across constructions in English and French\",\"authors\":\"Elodie Winckel ,&nbsp;Anne Abeillé ,&nbsp;Barbara Hemforth ,&nbsp;Edward Gibson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105950\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The article presents four acceptability judgment experiments that evaluate novel predictions of the Focus-Background Conflict constraint (Abeillé et al. 2020, Cognition) with respect to the acceptability of long distance dependencies for so-called “subject islands” in English and French. In contrast with syntactic accounts, the Focus-Background Conflict constraint predicts differential behavior across different constructions. The current paper tests a novel prediction of this theory, in a construction that has not yet been tested experimentally: <em>it</em>-clefts. Experiment 1 shows that elements in clefted clauses are not uniformly backgrounded, contrary to a standard assumption in the syntax / discourse literature. Experiments 2–4 tested long-distance dependency relations in relative clauses and clefts. In both languages, there is strong evidence of a cross-construction difference when comparing the two constructions with each other: extraction of the subject complement out of a subject NP was super-additively difficult in clefts, but not in relative clauses, as predicted by the Focus-Background Conflict constraint.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognition\",\"volume\":\"254 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105950\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002361\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002361","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文章介绍了四个可接受性判断实验,这些实验评估了焦点-背景冲突约束(Abeillé 等人,2020 年,《认知》)对英语和法语中所谓 "主语岛 "的长距离依存关系可接受性的新预测。与句法解释不同的是,"焦点-背景冲突约束 "预测了不同结构中的不同行为。本文在一种尚未进行过实验测试的结构中测试了这一理论的新预测:it-clefts。实验 1 显示,与句法/语篇文献中的标准假设相反,裂隙分句中的元素并不是统一背景的。实验 2-4 测试了相对从句和裂隙中的长距离依存关系。在这两种语言中,将两种结构相互比较时,有强有力的证据表明了跨结构的差异:从主语 NP 中提取主语补语在裂隙中是超加困难的,而在相对从句中则不然,这是由焦点-背景冲突约束所预测的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discourse-based constraints on long-distance dependencies generalize across constructions in English and French
The article presents four acceptability judgment experiments that evaluate novel predictions of the Focus-Background Conflict constraint (Abeillé et al. 2020, Cognition) with respect to the acceptability of long distance dependencies for so-called “subject islands” in English and French. In contrast with syntactic accounts, the Focus-Background Conflict constraint predicts differential behavior across different constructions. The current paper tests a novel prediction of this theory, in a construction that has not yet been tested experimentally: it-clefts. Experiment 1 shows that elements in clefted clauses are not uniformly backgrounded, contrary to a standard assumption in the syntax / discourse literature. Experiments 2–4 tested long-distance dependency relations in relative clauses and clefts. In both languages, there is strong evidence of a cross-construction difference when comparing the two constructions with each other: extraction of the subject complement out of a subject NP was super-additively difficult in clefts, but not in relative clauses, as predicted by the Focus-Background Conflict constraint.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信