| |
Abstract:
The results of six pilot experiments will be shown to support
a definiteness-based account of the which N/who contrast over a
referentiality-based analysis.
Traditionally, the contrast between which N and who (e.g.
relative acceptability in long-distance extraction) is related to
the referential status of the wh-phrase and the syntactic
properties of the associated empty category (Binding and pro for
referential which N, Government and wh-trace for non-referential
who, cf. Cinque 1990, Rizzi 1990). Previous experimental data
within this framework show for instance that who but not which N
triggers the construction of a syntactic chain (causing an
initial subject interpretation preference for who in Italian at
least, cf. DeVincenzi 1991), or that Government but not Binding
relations are preserved in agrammatic comprehension (Hickok and
Avrutin 1995).
The referentiality-based analysis, focussing on structural
aspects of wh-clauses, predicts which N constructions containing
a reflexive pronoun to be globally more complex than
corresponding who constructions. While who involves essentially
structural operations (construction of a chain, structural
conditions on wh-traces and reflexives), which N involves hybrid
operations (Binding, identification of pro, creation of a set of
relevant entities in the discourse representation, etc).
A definiteness-based account that does not concentrate on
structural factors makes opposite predictions. Regardless of the
complexity of other syntactic and interpretive operations that
are performed anyway, definite which N involves the creation in
the discourse representation of a finite set of relevant entities
(which can undergo global indexing), while who requires an open
representation (under the current working hypothesis, a
potentially infinite list with separately indexed members).
Sentences like (1)-(2), in which Mary and Lucy are potential
parasitic antecedents for pro, not for wh-trace, were compared in
six experiments (using self-paced reading, sentence matching, and
speeded grammaticality judgement tasks).
(1) Mary wonders which man, according to Lucy, killed himself
last week.
(2) Mary Baker wonders who, according to Lucy, killed himself
last week.
If referentiality and structural processes are the key, (1)
should be significantly harder than (2) (more complex operations
to identify the referent for the reflexive). The definiteness
account makes opposite predictions, supported by the converging
results of the six experiments: (2) elicits longer reading times,
no facilitation for reflexive interpretation, slower response
times, and higher error rates. The contrast holds across number
and gender marking, which precludes explanations based on lexical
features and supports the hypothesis that who unpacks as "what
persons," not "which persons" (Heim 1987).
Cinque, G. (1990).
Types of A'-Dependencies.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
DeVincenzi, M. (1991).
Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Heim, I. (1987). "Where does the definiteness restriction apply?
Evidence from the definiteness of variables." In E. Reuland and
A.G.B ter Meulen (eds.)
The Representation of (In)Definiteness.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hickok, G. and S. Avrutin. (1995). "Representation,
referentiality, and processing in agrammatic comprehension: Two
case studies."
Brain and Language
50.1, 10-26.
Rizzi, L. (1990).
Relativized Minimality.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
|
