| 1 |
Word order in French: the role of animacy
|
|
|
|
In: Glossa: a journal of general linguistics; Vol 6, No 1 (2021); 55 ; 2397-1835 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 2 |
A new case of low modality: Goal PPs*
|
|
|
|
In: Semantics and Linguistic Theory; Proceedings of SALT 30; 562-582 ; 2163-5951 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 3 |
Processing ambiguities in attachment and pronominal reference
|
|
|
|
In: Glossa: a journal of general linguistics; Vol 5, No 1 (2020); 77 ; 2397-1835 (2020)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 10 |
The role of conceptual accessibility on word order alternations in French: Evidence from sentence recall Complement order
|
|
|
|
In: International Workshop on Language Production ; https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01451790 ; International Workshop on Language Production, Jul 2014, Genève, Switzerland ; http://www.unige.ch/fapse/iwlp2014/ (2014)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 11 |
The role of animacy in sentence production: Evidence from French
|
|
|
|
In: Congrès de l’ACL 2014 | 2014 CLA meeting ; https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01451838 ; Congrès de l’ACL 2014 | 2014 CLA meeting, May 2014, St. Catharines, Canada ; http://cla-acl.ca/congres-de-2014-2014-conference/ (2014)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 12 |
The parsing and interpretation of comparatives: More than meets the eye
|
|
|
|
In: Doctoral Dissertations Available from Proquest (2013)
|
|
Abstract:
This dissertation examines comparative constructions, both in terms of their representation in syntax and semantics and in terms of the way these representations are built and interpreted incrementally during sentence processing. While there has been extensive investigation of comparatives in the syntax and semantics literature (see Bresnan, 1973; von Stechow, 1984; Heim, 1985; Kennedy, 1999, among others), there has been little work on how comparatives are processed (although see Fults and Phillips, 2004; Wellwood et al., 2009 for work on so-called comparative illusions). In the first half of the dissertation, I address issues that are primarily syntactic in nature; in the second half, I address issues that are primarily at the semantic and pragmatic levels. In Chapter 2, I examine the basic syntax of English comparatives and readers' expectations for the structure of comparatives during parsing. I present evidence from eye movements during reading to argue that a curious pattern of acceptability in comparatives (observed by Osborne, 2009) arises from processing factors rather than the grammar. Chapter 3 provides evidence from self-paced reading that, in contrast to what has been shown for other more widely studied structures, in comparative clauses subject gaps are more difficult to process than object gaps. Some potential accounts for this asymmetry between comparatives and other structures are discussed, and in Chapter 4, I argue for a grammar-based account of the subject gap penalty. Chapters 5 and 6 investigate questions in the semantics/pragmatics and semantic processing of comparatives. In Chapter 5, I introduce a previously unstudied type of comparative, which I call subset comparatives, and investigate their appropriate formal representation. In addition to their theoretical interest, subset comparatives can provide insight into comprehenders' expectations regarding the relationship between the two sets of entities involved in comparatives. Evidence from eye movement studies suggests that readers have an initial preference for contrast, or disjointness, between sets in comparatives. Chapter 6 investigates issues in the comparison of pluralities during on-line sentence processing, again as studied through eye movements during reading. This chapter provides evidence that, when comparing sets, comparisons that involve degrees along an adjectival scale involve complexity beyond that involved in comparing sets in terms of their cardinalities. The results of my experimental studies on comparatives are related to broader issues in linguistics and psycholinguistics, such as the sources of well-formedness (or ill-formedness) in language, the representation of linguistically described sets in language processing, and the interaction between levels of information (syntactic, semantic, and conceptual/world knowledge) in comprehension.
|
|
Keyword:
Linguistics|Cognitive psychology
|
|
URL: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI3556253
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 13 |
The Parsing and Interpretation of Comparatives: More than Meets the Eye
|
|
|
|
In: Open Access Dissertations (2013)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 17 |
Still no phonological typicality effect on word reading time (and no good explanation of one, either): A rejoinder to Farmer, Monaghan, Misyak, and Christiansen
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 18 |
Phonological Typicality Does Not Influence Fixation Durations in Normal Reading
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
