Cover not available

In:Weak Referentiality
Edited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn and Joost Zwarts
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219] 2014
► pp. 287–310

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Unscrambling the lexical nature of weak definites

Published online: 3 December 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.12swa
We investigate how the lexical nature of weak definites influences the phenomenon of direct object scrambling in Dutch. Earlier experiments have indicated that weak definites are more resistant to scrambling than strong definites. We examine how the notion of weak definiteness used in this experimental work can be reduced to lexical connectedness. We explore four different ways of quantifying the relation between a direct object and the verb. Our results show that predictability of a verb given the object (verb cloze probability) provides the best fit to the weak/strong distinction used in the earlier experiments
References (22)
References
Aguilar-Guevara, A. & Zwarts, J. 2010. Weak definites and reference to kinds. In Proceedings of SALT 20, N. Li & D. Lutz (eds), 179–196. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Abbott, B. 2004. Definiteness and indefiniteness. In Handbook of Pragmatics, L.R. Horn & G. Ward (eds), 122–149. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barbier, I. 2000. An experimental study of scrambling and object shift in the acquisition of Dutch. In The Acquisition of Scrambling and Cliticization, S.M. Powers & C. Hamann (eds), 41–69. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Bergen, G. & de Swart, P. 2010. Scrambling in spoken Dutch: Definiteness versus weight as determinants of word order variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(2): 267–295. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, G. & Sussman, R. 2005. Seemingly indefinite definites. In Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, S. Kepser & M. Reis (eds), 71–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, G., Sussman, R., Klein, N. & Tanenhaus, M. 2006. Weak definite NPs. In Proceedings of NELS 36, C. Davis, A.R. Deal & Y. Zabbal (eds). Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
CGN. 2006. Corpus Gesproken Nederlands, Version 2.0. Electronic Resource. [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diesing, M. & Jelinek, E. 1995. Distributing Arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3(2): 123–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Does, J. & de Hoop, H. 1998. Type-shifting and scrambled definites. Journal of Semantics 15(4): 393–416. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farkas, D. 2002. Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19: 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farkas, D. & de Swart, H. 2007. Article choice in plural generics. Lingua 117(9): 1657–1676. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M.C. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen & Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers & Wolters Plantyn. Online edition (e-ANS) [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.A. 1991. On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27: 405–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schaeffer, J.C. 2000a. The Acquisition of Direct Object Scrambling and Clitic Placement: Syntax and Pragmatics [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000b. Scrambling and specificity in Dutch child language. In The Acquisition of Scrambling and Cliticization, S.M. Powers & C. Hamann (eds), 71–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scholten, J. & Aguilar-Guevara, A. 2010. Assessing the discourse referential properties of weak definite NPs. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 27, J. van Kampen & R. Nouwen (eds), 115–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Solomon, E. & Pearlmutter, N. 2004. Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive Psychology 49: 1–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Swart, P. & van Bergen, G. 2011+. Definiteness and Adverb-Object Order in Dutch. Ms, University of Groningen/Université Catholique de Louvain.
Unsworth, S. 2005. Child L2, Adult L2, Child L1: Differences and Similarities. A Study on the Acquisition of Direct Object Scrambling in Dutch. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT Publications.
. 2007. L1 and L2 acquisition between sentence and discourse: Comparing production and comprehension. Lingua 117: 1930–1958. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wasow, T. & Arnold, J. 2003. Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (eds), 119–154. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue