Effects of discourse on control
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10140919 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Vikki Janke (0000-0003-1149-6999, University of Kent, corresponding author), Laura R Bailey (0000-0003-3359-9630, University of Kent, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 53 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 533-565 |
| Publication date | 2016-09-21 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Linguistics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-2267 • E-ISSN: 1469-7742 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0022226716000281 |
| OpenAlex | W2522347693 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 20 |
This study examined discourse effects on obligatory and non-obligatory control interpretations. Seventy participants undertook three online forced-choice surveys, which monitored preferred interpretations in complement control, verbal gerund subject control, long-distance control and sentence-final temporal adjunct control. Survey 1 ascertained their baseline interpretations of the empty category in these constructions. Survey 2 primed the critical sentences used in survey 1 with a weakly established topic of discourse and survey 3 primed them with a strongly established one. Reference assignment in complement control remained consistent across all three conditions, illustrating that pragmatics does not infiltrate this structurally regulated and syntactically unambiguous construction. Changes in interpretation were found in the remaining three constructions. An accessibility-motivated scale of influence, combining three independent discourse factors (topichood, competition and linear distance) was created to model reference determination in verbal gerund subject control and long-distance control. The results for temporal adjunct control are novel. They revealed a much stronger susceptibility to pragmatic interference than that reported in the literature yet the construction behaved differently from non-obligatory control under discourse pressure. We propose a structural account for sentence-final temporal adjunct control, which permits the evident interpretation shift while still excluding arbitrary and sentence-external interpretations
Adjunct · Complement (music · Contrast (vision · Control (management · Gerund · Interpretation (philosophy · Linguistics · Noun · Pragmatics · Sentence · Subject (documents · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism · Philosophy · Psychology · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Elements of Control
Accessibility theory
An Activation‐Based Model of Sentence Processing as Skilled Memory Retrieval
Information Structure and Sentence Form
Topic Continuity in Discourse
Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora
Identifying reference and truth‐values
Accessibility Marking
Toward a model of grammaticality judgments
Control in Generative Grammar
Pragmatics and Linguistics
Referring and accessibility
A minimalist theory of A-movement and control
Ascending and Descending VPs in English
Control without a subject
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,38 |
| Citation span | 2018 - 2024 (7) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |