BeNeCLA Blog

Date & time: 27 April; 15:30-17:00

Location: Utrecht University, Janskerkhof 13, Room 0.06

Arnout Koornneef

Utrecht University, UiL-OTS

Anticipating causal relations between events

Implicit causality is a property of some interpersonal verbs in which one or the other of the verb’s arguments is implicated as the underlying cause of the action or attitude. For example, people normally ascribe the underlying cause of the praising-event in a sentence fragment such as David praised Linda because to the object NP (e.g. because she had completed the assignment). In series of self-paced reading, eye-tracking and ERP experiments we showed that this pragmatic implicit causality cue is used to anticipate how the unfolding utterance will continue. Currently, we are pursuing a line of research in which we combine these insights from linguistics with knowledge from visual perception research. More specifically, using neuroimaging techniques (ERP, fMRI) this project investigates the hypothesis that two of our basic cognitive systems – vision and language – make use of the same cognitive components to anticipate causal relations between events.

Date & time: April 21; 15:30-17:00

Location: Utrecht University, Janskerkhof 13, Room 0.06

 Sarah van Vliet

VU University Amsterdam

The use of proper nouns and pronouns in narrative discourse:

Towards a process model of reference maintenance

 Abstract

When narrators refer to the characters in their stories, they typically alternate between explicit referential expressions such as proper nouns (‘Henry’), and attenuated expressions such as pronouns (‘he’). In this talk I report an analysis of maintained protagonist references within a large corpus of elicited written Dutch narratives (van Vliet 2008). The analysis focuses on the consecutive choices between pronouns and repeated proper nouns, relative to a number of grammatical and discourse factors. On the basis of the results I present a model of reference maintenance in which the choice between proper nouns and pronouns is guided by both linear factors such as referential distance, and hierarchical factors such as episode structure.  I will discuss the role of referent salience (cf. Ariel 2001 inter alia) and attention fluctuation in this model of referential choice, and the question whether referential choice can best be explained in terms of speaker-based or addressee-oriented mechanisms (cf. Arnold 2008)

References

Ariel, M. 2001. Accessibility Theory: An overview. In T. Sanders & J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Arnold, J.E. (2008). Reference production: production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23 (4), 495-527.

Van Vliet, S. (2008). Proper Nouns and Pronouns: The production of referential expressions in narrative discourse.   Ph.D. diss., Tilburg University. LOT series 175.

Discourse op Maandag

Date & time: March 30; 11:00-12:30

Location: Utrecht, Kromme Nieuwegracht 80, Stijlkamer van Ravesteyn 1.06

Jennifer Spenader

University of Groningen

Coherence Relations, Anaphora and Presupposition

Abstract:

Consider the following sentences and what the preferred interpretation of “he” is:

(1) Samuel threatened Justin with a knife, and he blindfolded Erin with a scarf (too). (Parallel)
(2) Justin was threatened by Samuel with a knife, and he blindfolded Erin with a scarf (too). (Parallel)
(3) Justin was threatened by Samuel with a knife, and he was arrested. (Cause-Effect)

The verb meaning makes clear that “he” should be interpreted as Justin in all three sentences, but somehow (2) is awkward. Kehler’s (2002) theory claims parallel coherence relations between two clauses constrains antecedent-anaphor relationships to parallel interpretations, e.g. object antecedents for object anaphora, etc. Because (2) has a passive-active voice mismatch, interpreting the pronoun in (2) is more awkward than in (1).  Cause-Effect relations are claimed to permit freer anaphoric links,  thus the same voice mismatch in a cause-effect relation in (3) is claimed not to influence anaphoric relationships.

Kehler illustrates his theory with convincing natural examples, but recently his theory has been tested experimentally, with a number of conflicting results (e.g. Frazier & Clifton, 2006, Kehler et al. 2008, Kertz 2008, Kobele et al. 2008). As a possible explanation, Frazier & Clifton (2006) and Hendriks (2002) have both suggested that the presence of presupposition triggers like “too” might influence pronoun interpretation possibilities.

In this talk I will present the motivation and set-up of a series of planned experiments to clarify the contribution of presuppositional triggers to pronoun interpretation in Parallel and Cause-Effect coherence relations, and discuss potential outcomes and their explanations.

The Discourse op Dinsdag discussion group is intended for researchers working on discourse from a language use perspective, and offers a platform to discuss their work (in progress). For more information check our website http://www.let.uu.nl/vici.

Date & time: March 24, 15:30-17:00

Location: Utrecht University, Janskerkhof 13, Room 0.06

Sergey Avrutin

UiL-OTS, Utrecht University

The syntax-discourse interface and representation of anaphoric dependencies

Abstract

I will present a model of the syntax-discourse interface that is based on the different representations of functional and lexical elements in discourse.  Specifically, in the model I develop, functional categories such as D introduce a discourse place holder (‘a file card frame’) and lexical categories such as N introduce the referential substance (‘a file card heading’).  Anaphoric elements of three types are analyzed: SE elements (‘zich’), SELF elements (‘zichzelf’) and pronouns. The main idea is that the differences in morphology and feature specification of these elements result in their different discourse representations.  Their interpretation depends on the relationship between discourse entities (file cards) which are constrained by a set of rules/principles that I discuss.  A substantial part of the theory of anaphora, therefore, appears to be explainable at a beyond-narrow-syntax level.

The Discourse op Dinsdag discussion group is intended for researchers working on discourse from a language use perspective, and offers a platform to discuss their work (in progress). For more information check our website http://www.let.uu.nl/vici.

Meetings are planned 4-weekly on Tuesdays 15:30-17:00, in Utrecht. If you wish to participate, please let us know. If you’re interested in presenting your research, we invite you to come forward by sending an email to r.vanveen@uu.nl.

Read the rest of this entry »