* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *


LINGUIST List 24.2110

Sun May 19 2013

Review: Neuroling.; Semantics; Syntax: Stolterfoht & Featherston (2012)

Editor for this issue: Joseph Salmons <jsalmonslinguistlist.org>

Date: 20-Mar-2013
From: Darcy Sperlich <darcy.sperlichmanukau.ac.nz>
Subject: Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory
E-mail this message to a friend

Discuss this message

Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/23/23-3943.html

EDITOR: Britta Stolterfoht
EDITOR: Sam Featherston
TITLE: Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory
SUBTITLE: Studies in Meaning and Structure
SERIES TITLE: Studies in Generative Grammar [SGG] 111
PUBLISHER: De Gruyter Mouton
YEAR: 2012

REVIEWER: Darcy Sperlich, University of Auckland

SUMMARY
This volume brings together a number of articles dedicated to empirical
research informing linguistic theory. The book is divided into three distinct
sections, ‘Methods and analysis’, ‘Applications to linguistic theory’ and
‘Cognitive and neurological basis of language’. The editors in their foreword
briefly cover the trends of linguistic empirical research and its advantages
for linguistic theorizing. They then provide a concise summary of each paper.

The first paper, ‘Incremental truth value judgments’ by Oliver Bott and Fabian
Schlotterbeck, introduces a new methodology in the elicitation of data
surrounding scope ambiguity. The method is dubbed ‘Incremental truth value
judgment task’ (ITVJ). It differs from a normal TVJT in that instead of simply
providing a truth-value statement about a certain context, the statement is
introduced incrementally; the participants allow the sentence to continue (by
computer) until they stop it at the point where it does not match the context.
The authors collected reaction times of the participants allowing the sentence
to continue, per part (in German). They find that their ITVJ provides clear
data on distinguishing between judgments made online and those that are
accessible post-interpretively (among other findings and theoretical
implications), which is directly attributed to the success of the ITVJ.

‘Measuring Syntactic Priming in Dialogue Corpora’ by Christian Pietsch, Armin
Buch, Stefan Kopp and Jan de Ruiter investigates lexical syntactic priming
from a corpus perspective. After reviewing the literature on syntactic
priming, they move on to the methodology used in their corpus analysis. Their
approach uses simple analytical measures when compared to previous
experiments, nevertheless providing clear results; being that repeating
syntactic structures points to priming.

‘How structure-sensitive is the parser? Evidence from Mandarin Chinese’ by
Zhong Chen, Lena Jäger and Shravan Vasishth presents a study on Principle A of
Binding Theory in Mandarin Chinese. Specifically, they review an approach to
reflexives which does not appeal to phi-features of person, gender and number
in the search for antecedents, which they disagree with. Furthermore, they
point to problems with studies that have low statistical power; that is the
effects observed may in fact be due to an insignificant sample size which
leads to null results. Their experiment involves the interpretation of ‘ziji’
(self) by native Chinese speakers, between interfering and non-interfering
subjects. Their results suggest that non-structural cues also play a part in
the resolution of ‘ziji’.

Antje Müller, Claudia Roch, Tobias Stadtfeld and Tibor Kiss in ‘The annotation
of preposition senses in German’ investigate polysemy of prepositions in
German. They concentrate on the senses of prepositions and how they map to
prepositional lexemes, limiting their corpus study to preposition-noun forms.
After establishing the senses studied in the corpus and the experimental
methodology, they cover spatial and temporal senses found within their corpus,
providing detailed trees. Finally, the authors give special attention to
‘ohne’ (without) as it often occurs in preposition-noun constructions rather
than prepositional phrases, e.g. ‘Eine Mofalenkerin, die ohne Helm unterwegs
war...’.

In ‘Evidence about evidentials: Where fieldwork meets theory’, Lisa Matthewson
argues that evidentials and epistemic modals are one and the same category,
drawing data from an endangered language, St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish).
Matthewson reviews research showing similarities between evidentials and
epistemic modals. She focuses on the evidential ‘lákw7a’ and how it appears to
belong to both categories, discussing tests which try to differentiate between
modals and non-modals, and she discusses these in comparison to other
languages. She concludes however, that it cannot be proved that all
evidentials are modals, but shows problems with tests that are supposed to
distinguish between the two.

The paper ‘Crosslinguistic variation in comparison: evidence from child
language acquisition’ by Sonja Tiemann, Vera Hohaus and Sigrid Beck discusses
the acquisition of comparative constructions in English and German, drawing
data from CHILDES. They start with semantic theory in relation to
comparatives, and then apply it to comparison constructions
crosslinguistically; testing the prediction of a semantic theory (called B17)
relating to child language acquisition. They found that the theory
successfully predicts the acquisitional path, and crosslinguistic comparison
of pronominal measure constructions yields interesting results.

The next article ‘Restricting quantifier scope in Dutch: Evidence from child
language comprehension and production’ by Petra Hendriks, Ruth Koops van’t
Jagt and John Hoeks investigates quantifier scope in children’s Dutch compared
to adults. They begin with a review of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic
explanations for the differences between the two age groups, wherein they
focus on Optimality Theory. Their experiment sets out to answer which theory
best predicts the production and interpretation in both groups. They found in
both tasks that results differed from each other, showing that the pragmatic
theory accounts for the comprehension data, while the Optimality Theory does
better at both data types.

Janneke Huitink in ‘McGee’s counterexample to Modus Ponens in context’ starts
by backgrounding Modus Ponens (If p, then q. P. Therefore q.) and McGee’s
famous counterexample -- ‘If a Republican wins the election, then if it’s not
Reagan who wins it will be Anderson. A Republican will win the election. If
it’s not Reagan who wins, it will be Anderson.’ In 1980, Reagan had a
commanding lead, with Carter trailing behind, and Anderson coming a distant
third -- there is little reason to believe that Anderson could win. Huitink
presents an experiment of the construct of McGee-like examples, in order to
show the psychological reality of the Ramsey test. The experimental results
show that context certainly can affect the Modus Ponens inferences. Finally,
Huitink enters a philosophical discussion on the validity of the Modus Ponens.

‘Interpreting adjectival passives: Evidence for the activation of contrasting
states’ by Berry Claus and Olga Kriukova discusses the interpretation of
adjectives and adjectival passives in German. After reviewing the relevant
literature and the characteristics of adjectival passives, they focus on a
suggestion that processing adjectival passives contrasts the current (target)
state to a past state (e.g. an open window to a closed one), whereas
adjectives do not go through such processing. This distinction should be
measurable by observing time latencies, and the authors specifically test this
proposal using picture verification tasks. Their experiment supports the
distinction postulated.

‘Focus projection between theory and evidence’ by Kordula De Kuthy and Detmar
Meurers investigates the part played by syntax and pragmatics in focus
constructions, through corpus evidence in comparison to the reviewed
experimental evidence. For example, ‘John rented a bicycle’, said in response
to ‘What did John rent?’, ‘a bicycle’ is the new information, receiving
stress. Two possible explanations for this are syntactic (in terms of the
focus projection) or purely pragmatic. The experimental evidence reviewed
shows that pragmatics has difficulty explaining the large data variation,
whereas the focus projection rule does a better job. The authors add to the
evidence via their own corpus study (in German, through two corpora), showing
that neither approach adequately capture the data completely.

The paper ‘Locative Inversion in English: Implications of a Rating Study’, by
Sara Holler and Jutta M. Hartmann investigates locative inversion (LI) in
English, ‘Into the room walked John’, in a variety of questions, focusing on
the unaccusative and unergative verbs affecting LI. Their experimental results
show that LI occurs with both unaccusative and unergative verbs with heavy
inversion, but also with light inversion with unergative verbs (which is not
predicted theoretically). They review an alternative theory (that unergative
verbs derive from the movement of verbs) to solve this problem, and also
suggest a Phonetic Form movement alternative. They conclude that it is not
transitivity that affects LI, but the information structure of LI (e.g. to set
a scene).

The first paper of the final section, ‘Word- vs. sentence-based simulation
effects in language comprehension’ by Barbara Kaup, Jana Lüdtke and Ilona
Steiner, explores cognitive simulations created by sentences and words, asking
specifically whether or not individual words in a sentence affect the
simulation (regardless of syntax), or the sentence as a whole. Through three
experiments they find that word effects explain the data better than sentence
effects, however the authors conclude that sentence-based processes cannot be
ruled out at present.

Eleonore Schwilling, Karen Lidzba, Andreas Konietzko, Susanne Winkler and
Ingebord Krägeloh-Mann in ‘Language skills in patients with reorganized
language (RL)’ present a clinical study focused on patients with left
hemispheric brain damage, who have reorganised their (German) language into
their right hemisphere. They test language comprehension and production
between them and normal speakers. This includes children, adolescents and
young adults, using a variety of linguistic tasks and functional neuroimaging.
Their results show that differences lie in complex structures (in German),
e.g. with sentences with noncanonical word order. They conclude that the
hypothesis of the right hemisphere fully taking over from the left hemisphere
cannot adequately account for their findings.

The final paper, ‘Predicting speech imitation ability biometrically’ by
Susanne Reiterer, Nandini C. Singh and Susanne Winkler, investigates
individual differences in speech imitation. Using neuroimaging and modulation
spectrum analysis, they aim to show where talented and untalented speech
imitators differ. Using fMRI, they scanned (German-speaking) participants
pronouncing an unfamiliar language (Hindi), and producing English-accented
German. fMRI scans show less talented speakers use their speech production
areas more than talented speakers, and that less talented speakers have a
smaller articulation space.

EVALUATION
Beginning the appraisal with the first section of the book, Bott and
Schlotterbeck’s introduction of a new methodology to disentangle scope
ambiguity readings is a welcome step, as it shows the challenge certain
semantic theories face to adequately describe their results. The next paper by
Pietsch, Buch, Kopp and Ruiter is short but precise to the point: this is the
new methodology developed, here is its use and the results produced. Chen,
Jäger and Vasishth’s study on Chinese ‘ziji’ is well thought out, and they
have recruited a large participant base to back up their findings. The authors
make a valid point about being cautious in how to interpret null results, as
it may simply be a result of the experiment having low statistical power. The
corpus study by Müller, Roch, Stadtfeld and Kiss shows the amount of time the
authors put into developing an annotational scheme of German prepositional
senses which will undoubtedly be of great use in further research of other
Germans prepositional senses, not to mention the possibility of extending it
to other languages.

Reviewing the second section, Matthewson’s research on an endangered language
brings an added perspective that data from languages like German and English
cannot provide. Specifically, although her proposal that all evidentials are
modals failed, it nonetheless casts doubts upon the tests used to distinguish
between the two, leaving the area open for further inquiry. The article on
comparatives by Tiemann, Hohaus and Beck does well to show that the B17 theory
is in accordance with the child language data, and also in teasing apart the
differences between pronominal measure constructions (PMP) and overt direct
measure phrases (MP) and their crosslinguistic implications. It is here that I
disagree with a piece of data supposedly showing that Mandarin Chinese does
not allow MPs; the authors give this as ungrammatical ‘*Yuehan shi yi mi qi
gao’ (Yuehan be one meter seven tall), which is an MP. Not allowing this
construction in Mandarin Chinese is taken to show that the language does not
have MPs but this is an incorrect conclusion. If one drops ‘shi’, the sentence
is perfectly acceptable, as in ‘Yuehan yi mi qi gao’, and just to confirm
this, I consulted 10 native speakers of Northern Mandarin, all finding this
sentence to be normal. Therefore, in light of this, Mandarin does have MP
(along with PMP as the authors note), putting it inline with the languages the
authors discuss, p. 139. The child acquisition article by Hendriks, Jagt and
Hoeks challenges the pragmatic account given by Philip (e.g. 2011), and while
they find similar data for comprehension, the authors provide extra evidence
in production to support their conclusion -- which provides a better-rounded
picture than just studying comprehension alone. Huitink’s experiment and
discussion on the Modus Ponens is a fascinating read, as the article goes to
great lengths to show experimentally how the Modus Ponens lives up to the
gathered data, and its consequences for philosophy. Claus and Kriukova’s
experiment is well designed and detailed, and takes into account a variety of
features. Importantly, their contribution to contrasting states in adjectival
passives is a first, and gives further credence to the semantic and pragmatic
theories that predict this. The corpus study by Kuthy and Meurers offers an
extensive review of the evidential literature, and they are able to draw
strong conclusions combining their own natural corpus evidence with
experiments, and in a nutshell their findings suggest to pursue both a
syntactic and pragmatic path towards focus constructions. Also, it is good
that they offer audio links but the website provided on p. 229 doesn’t work
(however Google gives a close enough website). Holler and Hartmann’s
experiment on locative inversion provides good evidence on the supposed
restrictions of locative inversion, finding that what was theorised previously
is not supported by their data, forcing rethinking of the issue. I note an
issue in using a scale of 1-7 which only explains what 1 and 7 means (from
what was described in the experiment); it would be better to label all
numerical categories to allow consistent treatment (but see Dienes 2008).
Also, having a mid-point can also be troublesome at times, for a participant
might use it to represent an ‘I don’t know’ category (Sorace 1988), i.e. when
comparing it to 7 ‘natural and highly acceptable’, 4 could mean ‘natural and
acceptable’, both which are not dissimilar. Moreover, the means found were
roughly between 3-4, which may show participants view 4 as the ‘natural’ mark.

In the final part of the book, Kaup, Lüdtke and Steiner’s cognitive paper
looks at word versus sentence based effects, but their evidence is far from
conclusive. While they find support for lexical based effects, they could not
rule out sentence effects. This does not show the failure of the experiment
but rather the great difficulty one has to tease apart the two effects (even
though they considered many factors). The results shown by Schwilling, Lidzba,
Konietzko, Winkler and Krägeloh-Mann have raised an important line of inquiry,
that is, from their study one cannot assume that the right hemisphere fully
takes over the linguistic capabilities of the left hemisphere, given their
in-depth look at complex grammatical structures. The final paper by Reiterer,
Singh and Winkler innovatively combines neurolinguistic and phonetic evidence
to distinguish between low and high imitation ability in speakers. Being able
to distinguish between these speakers opens a window as to why they differ so
much, with the authors suggesting that auditory working memory plays a large
role.

There are only minor criticisms to make. There appears to be some formatting
inconsistency across chapters, e.g. at times after a colon the word begins
with a capital letter whilst others do not. There are some spelling mistakes,
e.g. ‘experimetn’, p. 286, but overall these do little to detract from the
quality of the articles. There are, on the other hand, numerous good points
that recommend this book. One of its strengths is the breadth of the articles
offered; one can read about first language acquisition, endangered languages
to neurolinguistic studies, all in one volume. One comes away with a much
stronger understanding of work in the various subfields; regardless of one’s
own linguistic orientation; there is something for everybody here. Secondly,
the articles on experimentation give a taste of the theory under consideration
and then present the linguistic evidence, allowing the reader to come to a
more objective understanding of the issue. Finally, throughout all the
experiments described one will pick up pointers and suggestions on
experimental methodology (including new methodology), which is valuable for
anyone wanting to see the latest experimental methodologies.

In sum, this volume is highly recommended for experimental researchers and
non-experimental linguists alike who are interested in pursuing the hard data.

REFERENCES
Dienes, Z. (2008). Subjective measures of unconscious knowledge. Progress in
Brain Research 168, 49--64.

Philip, W. (2011). Acquiring Knowledge of Universal Quantification. In J. de
Villers and T. Roeper (eds.), Handbook of Generative Approaches to Language
Acquisition, 351--394. Dordrecht: Springer.

Sorace, A. (1988). Linguistic intuitions in language development: The problem
of interdeterminacy. In J. Pankhurst, M. S. Smith and P. V. Buren (eds.),
Learnability and second languages: A book of readings, 167--190. Dordrecht:
Foris.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Darcy Sperlich is currently a senior lecturer of ESOL in the School of English
at the Manukau Institute of Technology, in Auckland, New Zealand. He is also a
PhD candidate awaiting his final examination at the Department of Applied
Language Studies and Linguistics at the University of Auckland. His thesis
investigates anaphoric interpretation in Chinese Mandarin by speakers of other
languages, and whether or not this suggests an anaphoric pragmatic/syntactic
division of labour in the languages concerned, involving a combination of
psycho- and theoretical linguistics, as well as SLA. His other research
interests include Chinese comparative dialectology, especially as related to
syntax.
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 19-May-2013

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT Logo
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.