On the Asymmetry of Processing Difficulty between Subject and Object Relative Clauses
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Even until recently, the asymmetry of processing difficulty between subject and direct object relative clauses has been understood with inconceivable theoretical assumptions, which claim the source of the asymmetry to be the intervening subject, structural depth of gap, head noun, and so forth. In this brief article, I adopt the minimalist framework to assert the Agree relation for feature valuation between probe and goal (Chomsky, 2008 and earlier papers) as the source for the asymmetry of processing difficulty. The direct cause of the extra processing difficulty for object relative clause is the number of possible options of Agree relations for the probes (C and T) to choose from. The probes in subject relative clause have only one option; that is, they share the only available goal. The same probes in object relative clause have three options; that is, each of the probes, without being entangled, must find and agree with its own discrete goal. For that, time and effort are needed because the probe-goal relation is not free (Pesetsky & Torrego, 2006). Otherwise options cause deviant expressions. Hence, this article puts forth the proposal for a more principled explanation to better understand the source of the extra processing difficulty captivated in object relative clause.
Abstract
Even until recently, the asymmetry of processing difficulty between subject and direct object relative clauses has been understood with inconceivable theoretical assumptions, which claim the source of the asymmetry to be the intervening subject, structural depth of gap, head noun, and so forth. In this brief article, I adopt the minimalist framework to assert the Agree relation for feature valuation between probe and goal (Chomsky, 2008 and earlier papers) as the source for the asymmetry of processing difficulty. The direct cause of the extra processing difficulty for object relative clause is the number of possible options of Agree relations for the probes (C and T) to choose from. The probes in subject relative clause have only one option; that is, they share the only available goal. The same probes in object relative clause have three options; that is, each of the probes, without being entangled, must find and agree with its own discrete goal. For that, time and effort are needed because the probe-goal relation is not free (Pesetsky & Torrego, 2006). Otherwise options cause deviant expressions. Hence, this article puts forth the proposal for a more principled explanation to better understand the source of the extra processing difficulty captivated in object relative clause.
참고문헌 (24)
- Adani, F., "Rethinking the acquisition of relative clauses in Italian: Towards a grammatically based account", Journal of Child Language, 38, pp.141~165 (2011)
- Adani, F, "Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier: A comprehension study with Italian children", Lingua, 120, pp.2148~2166 (2010)
- Bianchi, V., "The raising analysis of relative clauses : A reply to Borsley", Linguistic Inquiry, 31, pp.123~140 (2000)
- Chomsky, N., "Minimalist Inquiries: The framework, In Step by Step: Essays in honor of Howard Lasnik", pp.89~156 (2000), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N., "Derivation by phase, In Ken Hale: A life in language", pp.1~52 (2001), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N., "Beyond explanatory adequacy, In The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 3, structures and beyond", pp.104~131 (2004), Oxford University Press
- Chomsky, N., "On Phases, In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud", pp.133~166 (2008), MIT Press
- Costa, J., "Subject-object asymmetries in the acquisition of Portuguese relative clauses: Adults vs. children", Lingua, 121, pp.1083~1100 (2011)
- Friedmann, N., "The child heard a coordinated sentence and wondered: On children’s difficulty in understanding coordination and relative clauses with crossing dependencies", Lingua, 120, pp.1502~1515 (2010)
- Friedmann, N., "Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies", Lingua, 119, pp.67~88 (2009)
- Gallego, Á. J., "T-to-C movement in relative clauses, In Romance languages and linguistic theory 2004. Selected papers from “GoingRomance” 2004", pp.143~170 (2006), John Benjamins
- Gallego, Á. J., "Phase theory" (2010), John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Gennari, S. P., "Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses", Cognition, 111, pp.1~23 (2009)
- Grewendorf, G., "Phases and cycles: Some problems with phase theory", The Linguistic Review, 26, pp.385~430 (2009)
- Hsu, C.-C. N., "Young children’s production of head-final relative clauses: Elicited production data from Chinese children", Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 18, pp.323~360 (2009)
- Kwon, N., "Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject", object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean, 2011, pp.86, 546~582
- Lardiere, D., "Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition", Second Language Research, 25, pp.173~227 (2009)
- Pesetky, D., "Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades" (1995), MIT Press
- Pesetsky, D., "T-to-C movement: Causes and Consequences, In Ken Hale: A life in language", pp.355~426 (2001), MIT Press
- Pesetsky, D., "Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories, In The syntax of time", pp.495~537 (2004), MIT Press
- Pesetsky, D., "Probes, goals and syntactic categories", Proceedings of the 7th Annual Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, pp.495~537 (2006), Hituzi Syobo Publishing Company.
- Radford, A., "English sentences: A minimalist approach" (2009), Cambridge University Press
- Richards, M. D., "On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition", Linguistic Inquiry, 38, pp.563~572 (2007)
- Richards, M. D., "Deriving the edge: What’s in a phase?", Syntax, 14, pp.74~95 (2011)