首页> 外文学位 >Grammatically-guided resolution of filler-gap dependencies: An investigation of Chinese multiple dependencies.
【24h】

Grammatically-guided resolution of filler-gap dependencies: An investigation of Chinese multiple dependencies.

机译:填补空白依赖项的语法指导解决方案:对中文多重依赖项的调查。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Previous studies have provided evidence that the parser avoids positing gaps in grammatically unlicensed positions such as islands, suggesting that the grammar constrains the construction of filler-gap dependencies (e.g., Stowe, 1986). However, such evidence does not provide evidence against an alternative interpretation which posits that that islands are simply processing bottlenecks and thus the parser is unable to establish a filler-gap dependency within these domains (e.g., Kluender & Kutas, 1993; Hofmeister & Sag, 2010). To this end, Wagers and Phillips (2009) provide evidence that grammatical knowledge is not only used to avoid establishing wh-dependencies when prohibited, but is also in motivating the active search for gap positions when required by the grammar. Building on Wagers and Phillips (2009), the current study examines whether gap-filling is predictive and grammatically-guided in a new domain: Chinese topicalization. In a self-paced reading study with Chinese native speakers (n=40), we compared the processing of sentences with coordinated verb phrases to that of sentences with post-verbal adjunct phrases. Coordinated VPs in English and Chinese require across the board extraction (Who does John know _ and love _/*Mary?) while extraction from the second position of post-verbal adjunct phrases is optional but not required (What did John eat _ after washing _/the dishes?). It is found that the parser actively searches for a second gap after positing a gap in the first coordinated VP while no gap-filling is observed in the post-verbal adjunct phrases. These results demonstrate that grammatical knowledge actively guides the incremental resolution of filler-gap dependencies.
机译:以前的研究已经提供了证据,表明解析器避免了在语法上没有许可的位置(例如岛屿)中出现间隙,这表明语法限制了填充间隙依赖项的构建(例如Stowe,1986)。但是,此类证据并未提供针对另一种解释的证据,该解释认为,这些岛只是在处理瓶颈,因此解析器无法在这些域内建立填充缺口依赖性(例如,Kluender&Kutas,1993; Hofmeister&Sag, 2010)。为此,Wagers and Phillips(2009)提供了证据,表明语法知识不仅被用来避免被禁止时建立wh依赖性,而且还被用来在语法要求时积极地寻找空位。在Wagers和Phillips(2009)的基础上,本研究研究了在新的领域:中文主题化中,填空是否具有预测性和语法指导性。在一项针对以汉语为母语的人(n = 40)的自定进度的阅读研究中,我们比较了带有协调动词短语的句子的处理与带有后言语附加短语的句子的处理。英文和中文的协调副总裁要求全面提取(约翰谁知道_并且爱_ / *玛丽?),而从第二语言后附加短语的提取是可选的,但不是必需的(约翰洗完后吃了_ _/盘子?)。发现解析器在第一个协调的VP中放置一个间隙后主动搜索第二个间隙,而在后语言的附加短语中没有观察到间隙填充。这些结果表明,语法知识可以积极地指导填充空白相关性的增量解决。

著录项

  • 作者

    Liu, Jie.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Kansas.;

  • 授予单位 University of Kansas.;
  • 学科 Linguistics.
  • 学位 M.A.
  • 年度 2014
  • 页码 58 p.
  • 总页数 58
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号