From: Larisa Zlatic <zlatic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 23:15:47 -0500 (CDT)
To: LINGUIST Conferences <linconf@emunix.emich.edu>
Subject: Re: Comment on Zlatic's comment
In-Reply-To: <9610202148.AA10150@JESPERSEN.CS.NYU.EDU>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.961020212811.10492C-100000@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>
BELOW IS MY REPLY TO REEVES
On Sun, 20 Oct 1996, LINGUIST Conferences wrote:
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 96 17:48:18 EDT
> From: Ruth Reeves <reevesr@jespersen.cs.nyu.edu>
> Subject: Comment on Zlatic's comment
>
> COMMENT TO ZLATIC FROM REEVES
>
> To Larisa Zlatic:
> In response to Seely's question about the status of
> indexing labeled "?*" in (4) and "?", "?*" in (9), you proposed a
> "pragmatic/processing explanation."
>
>
> (4) Jovan (i) je procitao [Marijin (j) clanak o sebi (i, ?*j)].
> John AUX read Mary's-ADJ article about self
> 'John read Mary's article about herself.'
>
> (9) Jovan (i) je procitao [Marijin (j) clanak o njemu (?*i) / njoj (?j)].
> John AUX read Mary's-ADJ article about him / her
> 'John read Mary's article about him/herself.'
>
> >From your response this afternoon [Sunday, Oct 20] to that question, I
> take it that Seely miunderstood the idea. Here's how I'm taking it:
> It's not the ambiguity between argument vs non-argument of Marijin
> itself which would cause a processing or pragmatic failure, but rather
> that if the NP(j) is interpreted as an argument in (4), say, then the
> indexing given becomes somewhat acceptable -- or perhaps the rather
> different claim -- it becomes acceptable to a small set of speakers on
> that interpretation this being also what would allow njemu to be
> co-indexed to Jovan in (9): an intervening subject allows it.
LARISA'S COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR RIGHTLY INTERPRETING MY RESPONSE TO SEELY
ON THE ABOVE JUDGEMENTS. LET ME CLARIFY THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS. WHEN
JUDGING A SENTENCE SUCH AS (4) ABOVE, 3 OUT OF 11 OF MY INFORMANTS
ACCEPTED BINDING OF A REFLEXIVE BY THE SUBJECT OF A NON-PROCESS NOMINAL,
WITH A COMMENT THAT THE BINDING OF A REFLEXIVE BY THE CLAUSAL SUBJECT
(JOVAN IN (4)) IS ALSO ACCEPTABLE TO THEM. HENCE, THE LABEL ?* IS
GIVEN TO THE REFLEXIVE SEBI WHEN REFERRING TO THE SUBJECT OF A NON-PROCESS
NOMINAL (MARIJIN IN (4)). THE OTHER 8 INFORMANTS ACCEPTED ONLY A
CLAUSAL SUBJECT AS A BINDER OF REFLEXIVES IN SENTENCES SUCH AS (4).
(AS I MENTIONED IN MY FIRST RESPONSE TO SEELY, SIMILAR JUDGMENTS
ARE REPORTED IN BENNETT'S (1992) PAPER 'ANAPHORA IN SERBO-CROATIAN'.)
THESE JUDGMENTS INDICATE THAT THE CLAUSAL SUBJECT IN SENTENCES SUCH AS (4)
IS THE MOST PROMINENT (OR WHAT I CALL 'UNAMBIGUOUS') BINDER.
> I'm
> guessing that the ambiguity you are talking about turns on something
> like whether Marijin is the possessor of the article or its author;
> the first being interpreted as a non-argument and the second as an
> argument.
REPLY: RIGHT.
Two questions: If my interpretation of your idea is right,
> in (9) the "?" on njoj --co-indexed to Marijin-- indicates that it's
> ok when M. is interpreted as the posssessor (non-argument) but
> crucially NOT when M. is interpreted as the author (argument). True?
REPLY: YES. AT LEAST, THAT'S HOW I INTERPRETED THE JUDGEMENTS ON _NJOJ_
IN (9).
>
> My second comment is a general worry about how to cash out this kind
> of idea. The claim seems to be that people waver in their judgements
> where it's not clear which meaning to give the noun phrase in
> SPEC-NP. I wonder about the possibility that this is a pragmatic
> effect. After all, the speaker can't have meant to utter an ambiguity
> and if the hearer knows which sense of possession is meant, then it
> won't count as ambiguous in any pragmatic sense. So suppose the
> effects are processing ambiguity effects, where >1 possible
> assignments to the position cause momentary parse failure upon
> reaching the argument co-indexed where both possibilities are still
> "active". This seems good until we return to the explanation which
> motivates it. It was selecting a PARTICULAR interpretation in the
> first place which allows the given indexation. Perhaps, in my attempt
> to understand your position, I have misrepresented it. I would be
> happy to learn that this is so because I am continually bothered by
> data involving more than one set of intuitions in a single grammar
> which seem to push each other back and forth.
>
REPLY:UNFORTUNATELY, THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS ALL INVOLVING NON-PROCESS
NOMINALS DO INVOLVE MORE THAN ONE SET OF INTUITIONS. I STILL BELEIVE THAT
PRAGMATIC
FACTORS (TO AVOID AMBIGUITY) ARE INVOLVED WHEN THE SPEAKER USES A PERSONAL
PRONOUN TO REFER TO THE SUBJECT OF A NON-PROCESS NOMINAL (AS IN (9)), FOR
PERSONAL PRONOUNS CONTAIN MORE MORPHOLOGICAL INFORMATION THAN THE
REFLEXIVE (WHICH MAKE NO NUMBER, GENDER NOR PERSON DISTINCTION).
> Ruth Reeves
>