On the definition of binding domains in Spanish : evidence from child language
Author(s)
Bibliographic Information
On the definition of binding domains in Spanish : evidence from child language
（Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics, v. 11）
Kluwer Academic, c1990
- : alk. paper
Available at / 27 libraries
-
Kobe Shoin Women's University Library / Kobe Shoin Women's College Library
: alk. paper10994864
-
No Libraries matched.
- Remove all filters.
Note
Rev. and abridged version of the author's dissertation (Ph. D.)--Cornell University
Includes bibliography (p. 157-159) and index
Description and Table of Contents
Description
Linguistic theory has recently experienced a shift in its conceptual approach from the formulation of descriptively adequate accounts of languages to the definition of principles and parameters claimed to reflect the initial structure of the language faculty, often termed Universal Grammar (UG). Linguistic experience is said to have the effect of guiding the child/linguist in fixing the unspecified parameters of U G to determine the grammar of his/her language. The study of anaphora has been of central concern as it addresses directly the innateness vs. experience issue. On the one hand, it is a part of all natural languages that is largely under determined by the data, and must therefore be included in the characterization of the initial state of the language faculty. On the other hand, although the principles that govern anaphora do not exhibit extreme variations across languages, a child/linguist must solve language specific issues for his/her language based on linguistic experience. This book examines a set of linguistic structures from both a theoretical and an experimental perspective. The purpose is to xv PREFACE xvi determine the roles of innateness and of experience in the devel opment of a child's theory of anaphora for his/her language.
Table of Contents
0 Introduction.- 0.1. Introduction.- 0.2. Universal Grammar.- 0.3. Anaphora.- 0.3.1. Definitions.- 0.3.2. Anaphora in Generative Grammar (GG).- 0.4. Theoretical Motivation.- Notes.- 1. Theoretical Background.- 1.1. Introduction.- 1.2. Anaphors and Pronominals within PPs in Simple Sentences.- 1.2.1. Acquisition Issues.- 1.3. Referential Properties of Pronominal Subjects.- 1.3.1. The Disjoint Reference Requirement.- 1.3.1.1. Mood.- 1.3.1.2. Agreement of Tenses.- 1.3.1.2.1. Verbs of Uncertainty (Doubt and Expectation).- 1.3.1.2.2. Verbs of Ignorance and Fear.- 1.3.1.2.3. Verbs of Denial and Regret.- 1.3.1.2.4. Verbs of Influence and Desire.- 1.3.1.2.5. Conclusion.- 1.3.1.3. The DRR as a Function of Lexical Properties of Main Verbs.- 1.3.1.3.1. Object Clauses.- 1.3.1.3.2. The DRR Linked to Subcategorization Properties of Main Verbs.- 1.3.1.3.3. Object-Subject Conference.- 1.3.1.3.4. Summary.- 3.2. Acquisition Issues.- Note.- 2. Previous Acquisition Literature.- 2.1. Development of Locality Principles and Binding Domains.- 2.2. The Role of Lexical Properties of Verbs in Grammatical Anaphora.- 2.3. Acquisition of the Subjunctive in Spanish.- 3. Rationale and Design.- 3.1. Experimental Design: Overview.- 3.1.1. Binding Principles and Binding Domains.- 3.1.2. Inflection.- 3.1.2.1. Mood.- 3.1.2.2. Tense.- 3.1.3. Lexical Properties of Verbs.- 3.1.4. Comparison of DR in Simple and Complex Sentences.- 3.2. Experimental Test: General Description.- 3.3. Experimental Design and Hypotheses.- 3.3.1. Base Study Design: Proform Type vs. Binding Domain.- 3.3.1.1. Base Study: Hypotheses.- 3.3.2. Inflection Study: (Mood X Tense Agreement).- 3.3.2.1. Inflection Study: Hypotheses.- 3.3.3. Lexical Class Study: +/- Volition x +/- IT.- 3.3.3.1. Lexical Class Study: Hypotheses.- 3.3.4. Interpretation Tests: Design Summary.- 4. Methods and Procedures.- 4.1. Subjects.- 4.2. General Procedures.- 4.2.1. Reference Set.- 4.2.2. Pretraining.- 4.2.3. Scoring.- 5. Results.- 5.1. Introduction.- 5.2. Base Study.- 5.2.1. Success Rate.- 5.2.2. Interpretation of Proforms.- 5.2.2.1. Disjoint Reference Responses.- 5.2.2.2. Coreferential Responses.- 5.2.3. Coreference vs. Disjoint Reference by Age Groups.- 5.2.4. Overview Summary.- 5.3. Inflection Study.- 5.3.1. Success Rate.- 5.3.1.1. Success Rate for INFL (Mood x Tense Agreement x Age).- 5.3.2. Interpretation of Null Subjects of Complement Clause: Disjoint Reference Responses.- 5.3.2.1. INFL (Mood x Tense Agreement).- 5.3.3. Coreferential Responses.- 5.3.3.1. Inflection (Mood x Tense Agreement).- 5.3.4. Coreferential vs. Disjoint Reference Responses by Age Groups.- 5.3.5. Overview Summary.- 5.4. Lexical Class Study.- 5.4.1. Success Rate.- 5.4.1.1. Success Rate for Lexical Class Study (IT x Volition).- 5.4.1.2. Success Rate for Epistemics + Indicative Complements.- 5.4.2. Interpretation of Null Subject of Complement Clause: Disjoint Reference Responses.- 5.4.2.1. Lexical Class Study (IT x Volition).- 5.4.2.2. Epistemic Verbs + Indicative/Subjunctive Complements.- 5.4.3. Corefential Responses.- 5.4.3.1. Lexical Class Study (IT X Volition).- 5.4.3.2. Epistemic Verbs + Indicative/Subjunctive Complements.- 5.4.4. Coreferential vs. Disjoint Reference Responses.- 5.4.5. Overview Summary.- 5.4.6. Analysis of Differences in DR Responses for Pronominals between Simple and Complex Structures.- Notes.- 6. Discussion.- 6.1. Overview Summary and Interpretation of Results.- 6.1.1. Theoretical Background.- 6.1.1.1. Anaphors/Pronominals within PPs.- 6.1.1.2. Subject-Subject Disjoint Reference Requirement.- 6.1.2. Simple Sentences.- 6.1.2.1. Summary of Results.- 6.1.2.1.1. The Nature of the Differentiation.- 6.1.2.1.2. Pronouns.- 6.1.2.1.3. Reflexives.- 6.1.2.2. Interpretation of Results.- 6.1.3. Complex Sentences.- 6.1.3.1. Summary of Results.- 6.1.3.2. Interpretation of Results.- 6.1.4. Development of DR in Simple and Complex Structures.- 6.2. Relation to Previous Acquisition Literature.- 6.3. Conclusions.- References.
by "Nielsen BookData"
