Linguistische Arbeiten 4 8 0

264 Pages·2014·9.17 MB·English

Linguistische
Arbeiten 480
Herausgegeben von Hans Altmann, Peter Blumenthal,
Hans Jürgen Heringer, Ingo Plag, Beatrice Primus und Richard Wiese
Bereitgestellt von | Universitaetsbibliothek Frankfurt/Main
Angemeldet | [email protected]
Heruntergeladen am | 05.08.14 04:44
Bereitgestellt von | Universitaetsbibliothek Frankfurt/Main
Angemeldet | [email protected]
Heruntergeladen am | 05.08.14 04:44
Petra Schulz
Factivity:
Its Nature and Acquisition
Max Niemeyer Verlag
Tübingen 2003
Bereitgestellt von | Universitaetsbibliothek Frankfurt/Main
Angemeldet | [email protected]
Heruntergeladen am | 05.08.14 04:44
To Paul and Moritz
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Bibliothek
Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte
bibliografische Daten sind im Internet Ober http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.
ISBN 3-484-30480-4 ISSN 0344-6727
© Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH, Tübingen 2003
http://www.memeyer.de
Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der
engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das
gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und
Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany.
Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.
Druck und Einband: Digital PS Druck AG, Birkach
Bereitgestellt von | Universitaetsbibliothek Frankfurt/Main
Angemeldet | [email protected]
Heruntergeladen am | 05.08.14 04:44
Acknowledgements
This book is a thorough revision of my Ph.D. dissertation from the University of Tübingen.
First and foremost I would like to thank the members of my thesis committee, Rosemarie
Tracy, Marga Reis, Veronika Ehrich, and Tom Roeper. I am particularly indebted to my
thesis advisor Rosemarie Tracy for her accessibility and readiness to discuss all questions
linguistic and otherwise. I am grateful to Marga Reis for helpful discussions on the nature
of presupposition and its reflection in syntax. I have been very lucky to have had Marga
Reis and Rosemarie Tracy as teachers. Marga Reis taught me to take empirical data seri-
ously. Rosemarie Tracy is responsible for giving shape to my interest in language acquisi·
tion. It is through her that I learned how to interpret child data and to make sense of them
by putting them into a theoretically motivated perspective. Thanks are also due to Veronika
Ehrich for helpful comments on the semantics of the complements of factive verbs and on
the inner-grammatical status of presupposition. I am very grateful to Tom Roeper for mak-
ing my several stays at UMass very fruitful ones, and for encouraging me to turn my hy-
potheses into experiments. He together with Jill de Villiers taught me not only how to do
experiments, but also how much fun they can be. I would like to thank Jill de Villiers for
sharing her knowledge of the comprehension of complement clauses with me and for
arousing my interest in the relation between theory of mind and language development.
I would like to thank my other Linguistics and Psychology teachers at the Teachers Col-
lege Heidelberg, the University of Tubingen, and the University of Massachusetts: Bernhard
Drubig, Chuck Clifton, Lyn Frazier, Wilhelm Glaser, Friedrich W. Hesse, Tilman Höhle,
Angelika Kratzer, Paul King, Manfred Krifka, Klaus Schulz, Uwe Mönnich, Barbara Partee,
Andrew Simpson, Inge Vincon, and Friedrich Wilkening.
I am very grateful to Anke Feldhaus, Michael Hegarty, Bart Hollebrandse, Ana Pirez-
Leroux, and Manuela Schönenberger for detailed comments on various parts of this work.
Very special thanks are due to Susanne Schüle for proof-reading this manuscript and to the
editor Ingo Plag, whose recommendations have greatly aided me in the preparation of this
book.
Discussions with various people helped clarify the ideas expressed in this book. I would
like to thank Sergey Avrutin, Melissa Bowerman, Ken Drozd, Lyn Frazier, Ira Gawlitzek-
Maiwald, Diana Gierling, Petra Gretsch, Angeliek van Hout, Erika Kaltenbacher, Angelika
Kratzer, Elsa Lattey, Elena Lieven, Inge Lasser, Zvi Penner, Janet Randall, Jeannette
Schaeffer, Bernhard Schwarz, Angeliek van Hout, Veerle van Geenhoven, Klaus von
Heusinger, Jürgen Weissenborn, Ken Wexler, Frank Wijnen, and Angelika Wittek.
I thank the Villigst foundation in Germany for awarding me a fellowship that made it
possible to spend a year at UMass, and for a further fellowship supporting my data collec-
tion. Data gathering was also supported by an NSF grant to Jill de Villiers and Tom Roeper.
The empirical work reported in this book would not have been possible without the kind
collaboration of the children, their parents, and the teachers of the Smith School at Sun-
nyside, the Sand Hill Day Care Center, the Nonotuck Community Child Care Center, and
the YMCA Summer Camp Northampton.
A very special thanks go to my parents and to my friends Arno Böttcher, Anke Feldhaus,
Wolfram Hosch, Kerstin Kiehl, Chris King, Hanka Kozinska, Gudrun Kruip, Doris Lehnert,
Bereitgestellt von | Universitaetsbibliothek Frankfurt/Main
Angemeldet | [email protected]
Heruntergeladen am | 05.08.14 04:45
VI
Corinna Matthes, Dan Murphy, Ana Pirez-Leroux, Susanne Schule, and Angelika Wittek
for their understanding and their support emotional and otherwise.
This work would not have been what it is without Paul. I can't thank him enough for
tirelessly providing native speaker judgments and for making sure I followed his stylistic
advice. This book is dedicated to Paul, who now knows more than he ever wanted to know
about factivity, and to Moritz, who doesn't know anything about it yet.
Bereitgestellt von | Universitaetsbibliothek Frankfurt/Main
Angemeldet | [email protected]
Heruntergeladen am | 05.08.14 04:45
Table of contents
List of Tables and Figures XI
Abbreviations and Conventions XII
1. Introduction 1
2. Lexical-Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Facti vi ty 6
2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 A Lexical-Semantic Account ofFactivity: Kiparsky & Kiparsky (1971) 7
2.2.1 Kiparsky & Kiparsky's Proposal 7
2.2.2 Presupposition Tests: Constancy under Negation and Question 9
2.2.3 Deficits of the Lexical-Semantic Account 10
2.3 Complement Clauses in Factive Sentences 12
2.4 A Semantic-Syntactic Account ofFactivity 15
2.4.1 Klein's Analysis of Tense 17
2.4.2 Topic Time Relations in Factive Sentences 19
2.4.3 Finite Complement Clauses 20
2.4.4 Nonfinite Complement Clauses 21
2.4.4.1 Perfective Complements 21
2.4.4.2 Infinitival Complements 22
2.4.4.3 Gerundial Complements 27
2.4.5 Summary 28
2.5 Semantic-Syntactic versus Pragmatic Factivity 29
2.6 P-factive and Nonfactive Matrix Predicates 31
2.7 Conclusion 36
3. Presupposition and Factivity 38
3.1 Introduction 38
3.2 Semantic and Pragmatic Inferences 39
3.2.1 Presupposition versus Entailment 40
3.2.2 Conventional Implicative 41
3.2.3 Generalized Conversational Implicature 42
3.2.4 Summary 43
3.3 Identifying Presuppositions in Factive Complements 44
3.3.1 Standard Tests for Presuppositions 44
3.3.1.1 The Test of Constancy under Negation 45
3.3.1.2 Yes/No Question Test 46
3.3.1.3 The Modality Test 47
3.3.1.4 The Antecedent Test 48
3.3.1.5 The Disjunction Test 49
3.3.1.6 Text Acceptability 1 49
3.3.1.7 Text Acceptability 2 50
Bereitgestellt von | Universitaetsbibliothek Frankfurt/Main
Angemeldet | [email protected]
Heruntergeladen am | 05.08.14 04:45
VIII
3.3.1.8 Summary 50
3.3.2 Projection Problem and Defeasibility Problem 51
3.3.3 Summary 55
3.4 A Discourse-Semantic Approach to Presupposition: File Change Semantics ... 56
3.4.1 Definite NPs and Factive Complements as Anaphors 57
3.4.2 Interpretation Rules 58
3.4.3 Felicity Conditions 60
3.4.4 Accommodation Rules 64
3.4.5 Projection and Defeasibility of Presuppositions 66
3.4.6 Presupposition and Presupposition Failure Again 68
3.4.7 Summary 70
3.5 Conclusion 71
4. The Structure of Factive and Nonfactive Sentences 73
4.1 Introduction 73
4.2 Syntactic Restrictions for Factive Sentences 75
4.2.1 Insertion of the fact 76
4.2.2 Gerunds and -ness Nominalizations 77
4.2.3 Subject-to-Subject Raising 77
4.2.4 Embedding of ECM Infinitives 78
4.2.5 Optionality of Extraposition 79
4.2.6 Negation-Raising 80
4.2.7 Insertion of Expletive ft 81
4.2.8 Sentence-Pronominalization with so 82
4.2.9 Long wA-Movement 82
4.2.10Postposing 85
4.2.11 Conjunction with and, but or and so 86
4.2.12 Insertion of Complementizer that 86
4.2.13 Semantic Addendum: Inference from a Subset to a Larger Set 87
4.2.14 Summary 88
4.3 Reflection of Factivity in the Complements' Event Structure 88
4.3.1 Event Semantics and Discourse-Binding 89
4.3.2 The Event Structure of Factive and Nonfactive Finite Complements 91
4.3.3 The Event Structure of Factive and Nonfactive Nonfinite
Complements 94
4.3.4 Syntactic Restrictions Again 98
4.3.5 Summary 101
4.4 Widening the Perspective: Response Stance Complements 102
4.4.1 The Event Structure of Response Stance Predicates 102
4.4.2 Presupposition Revisited 106
4.5 Conclusion 111
5. Factivity in Language Acquisition 113
5.1 Introduction 113
5.2 Hypotheses for Language Acquisition 115
5.3 Language Acquisition Data: Two Caveats 116
Bereitgestellt von | Universitaetsbibliothek Frankfurt/Main
Angemeldet | [email protected]
Heruntergeladen am | 05.08.14 04:45
IX
5.4 Acquisition of Complex Clauses 120
5.4.1 From Simple to Complex Sentences: An Overview 120
5.4.2 The Emergence of Factive Sentences: Two Case Studies 124
5.5 Cognitive Aspects of Mastering Facti vity: Theory of Mind 133
5.5.1 Development ofthe Theory of Mind 134
5.5.2 The Role of Language in TTieoiy of Mind Development 135
5.6 Comprehension ofP-factive and Nonfactive Verbs 139
5.6.1 Semantic Approaches 141
5.6.2 Pragmatic Approaches 145
5.6.3 Summary 148
5.7 Mastering Weak Island Effects of Factive Sentences 149
5.7.1 Long Adverbial wA-Movement 150
5.7.2 Negation-Raising 151
5.7.3 Semantic Inferences from a Subset to a Larger Set 152
5.7.4 Summary 153
5.8 Conclusion 153
6. Towards a Developmental Model 157
6.1 Introduction 157
6.2 The Psycholinguistic Perspective 157
6.2.1 Mechanisms of Language Processing in Adults 159
6.2.2 Implications for Sentence Processing in Children 162
6.2.3 Summary 167
6.3 Acquiring Factivity: A Developmental Path 168
6.3.1 Stage 1: Simple Sentences and Simple Events 169
6.3.2 Stage 2: Acquisition of the Syntax of Embedding 171
6.3.3 Stage 3: Emergence ofthe Theory of Mind 172
6.3.4 Stage 4: Barrierhood of Factive Comp 181
6.3.5 The Developmental Path in a Nutshell 182
6.4 Conclusion 183
7. Experimental Studies 185
7.1 Introduction 185
7.2 Rationale of the Experimental Studies 185
7.3 Experiment 1 188
7.3.1 Participants 188
7.3.2 Materials for Experiment 1 189
7.3.3 Procedure for Experiment 1 195
7.3.4 Predictions for Experiment 1 196
7.3.5 Results of Experiment 1 198
7.3.6 Discussion of Experiment 1 205
7.4 Experiment 2 207
7.4.1 Materials for Experiment 2 207
7.4.2 Procedure for Experiment 2 211
7.4.3 Predictions for Experiment 2 212
7.4.4 Results of Experiment 2 213
7.4.5 Discussion of Experiment 2 220
Bereitgestellt von | Universitaetsbibliothek Frankfurt/Main
Angemeldet | [email protected]
Heruntergeladen am | 05.08.14 04:45
χ
7.5 General Discussion 222
7.5.1 Summary of the Experimental Results 222
7.5.2 A Possible Interpretation of Presupposition Failure 223
7.6 The Developmental Path Recasted 227
7.6.1 Stage 3: Emergence of the Theory of Mind 227
7.6.2 Stage 4: Barrierhood ofFactive Comp 229
7.6.3 The Recasted Developmental Path in a Nutshell 229
7.7 Conclusion 231
8. Conclusion 233
Appendix 241
References 243
Bereitgestellt von | Universitaetsbibliothek Frankfurt/Main
Angemeldet | [email protected]
Heruntergeladen am | 05.08.14 04:45