Advertisement

Pairing Form and Meaning in English and Norwegian: Conjoined VPs or Conjoined Clauses?

  • Bergljot BehrensEmail author
  • Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen
  • Lyn Frazier
Chapter
  • 611 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 44)

Abstract

Conjoined VPs and conjoined clauses with co-referential subjects often seem interchangeable. Two comprehension studies, each conducted in both English and Norwegian, investigated which conjoined structure is preferred under given conditions. With adversative, or concessive, relations, conjoined clauses were preferred in both languages; with simple cause-result relations, conjoined VPs were preferred in both languages. These effects were more pronounced in Norwegian, where an overt or empty frame-setting adverbial must be taken to scope over both conjuncts of a conjoined VP but not over both conjuncts of a conjoined clause (whereas in English an overt or a covert frame-setting adverbial ambiguously scopes over either both clauses or just the first clause). A separate experiment investigated the preferred temporal interpretation for conjoined structures in English and Norwegian.

Keywords

VP/S-coordination Discourse relations Norwegian English 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors’ names are in alphabetical order. Our work was supported by a project grant to Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen by the Center for Advanced Study in Oslo (Meaning and Understanding Across Languages 2010/2011) and by grant HD18708 to the University of Massachusetts. We are extremely grateful to Charles Clifton, Jr., for advice and statistical help, to Hans Kamp for reading an early draft of the chapter and giving us comments that have helped to sharpen and clarify our proposal, and to Barbara Hemforth, Torgrim Solstad, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on the first version of our paper.

References

  1. Abusch, D. (1998). Generalizing tense semantics for future contexts. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 13–33). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bader, M. (1998). Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In J. D. Fodor & F. Fernanda (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 1–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumann, P., Konieczny, L., & Hemforth, B. (2014). Conversational implicatures in anaphora resolution: Alternative constructions and referring expressions. In B. Hemforth, B. Schmiedtová, & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages (Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics, pp. 197–212). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Behrens, B., & Fabricius-Hansen, C. (2009). The relation accompanying circumstance across languages. In D. Shu & K. Turner (Eds.), Contrasting meaning in languages of the East and West (pp. 531–551). Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  6. Behrens, B., & Solfjeld, K. (2013). Discourse role guiding clause type and relative position in translation. In L. Sarda, S. Carter-Thomas, B. Fagard, & M. Charolles (Eds.), Adverbials in use: From predicative to discourse functions. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
  7. Behrens, B., Fabricius-Hansen, C., & Solfjeld, K. (2012). Competing structures: The discourse perspective. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & D. T. T. Haug (Eds.), Big events, small clauses: The grammar of elaboration (pp. 179–225). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Behrens, B., Mertins, B., Hemforth, B., & Fabricius-Hansen, C. (2014). Understanding coordinate clauses: A cross-linguistic experimental approach. In B. Hemforth, B. Mertins, & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages (Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics, pp. 23–51). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Bestgen, Y., & Vonk, W. (2000). Temporal adverbial phrases as segmentation markers in discourse comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 74–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Blakemore, D., & Carston, R. (2005). The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. Lingua, 115, 569–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blass, R. (1989). Pragmatic effects of coordination: The case of “and” in Sissala. University College London Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 32–51. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/psychlangsci/research/linguistics/publications/wpl/89papers/UCLWPL1_3_Blass.Google Scholar
  13. Büring, D., & Hartmann, K. (1998). Asymmetrische Koordination. Linguistische Berichte, 174, 172–201.Google Scholar
  14. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charolles, M. (2005). Framing adverbials and their role in discourse cohesion from connection to forward labeling. In M. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. Le Draoulec, & L. Vieu (Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning (SEM-05). Biarritz. http://www.lattice.cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf/FramingAdvDiscCohesionBiarritz.pdf
  16. Cormack, A., & Smith, N. (2005). What is coordination? Lingua, 115, 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Degand, L., & Simon, A. C. (2009). On identifying basic discourse units in speech: Theoretical and empirical issues. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique 4. http://discours.revues.org/5842
  18. Den Besten, H. (1989). Studies in West Germanic syntax. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  19. Dickey, M. W. (2001). The processing of tense: Psycholinguistic studies on the interpretation of tense and temporal relations. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S., & Vannebo, K. I. (1997). Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  21. Fabricius-Hansen, C., & Ramm, W. (2008). Editors’ introduction: Subordination and coordination from different perspectives. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), “Subordination” versus “coordination” in sentence and text: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Féry, C. (2005). Laute und leise Prosodie. In H. Blühdorn, E. Breindl, & U. H. Waßner (Eds.), Text—Verstehen. Grammatik und darüber hinaus (pp. 164–183). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Fillenbaum, S. (1974). Pragmatic normalization: Further results for some conjunctive and disjunctive sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102(4), 574–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 32, 112–132.Google Scholar
  25. Frey, W. (2006). Contrast and movement to the German prefield. In V. Molnár & S. Winkler (Eds.), The architecture of focus (pp. 235–264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Givón, T. (1993). Topic continuity in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  27. Haider, H. (2004). Pre- and postverbal adverbials in OV and VO. Lingua, 114(6), 779–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haider, H. (2010). The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haider, H., Olsen, S., & Vikner, S. (1995). Introduction. In H. Haider, S. Olsen, & S. Vikner (Eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax (pp. 1–45). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holmberg, A., & Rijkhoff, J. (1998). Word order in the Germanic languages. In A. Siewierska (Ed.), Constituent order in the languages of Europe (pp. 75–104). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  31. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  32. Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. König, E., & Siemund, P. (2000). Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast. Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 341–360). Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lie, S. (1994). Partisipper = adjektiver. In J. Allwood, B. Ralph, P. Andersson, D. Kós-Dienes, & Å. Wengelin (Eds.), Proceedings from The XIVth Scandinavian conference of linguistics and The VIIIth conference of Nordic and general linguistics (Vol. 2). Gothenburg: Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
  36. Maienborn, C. (2001). On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 9(2), 191–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281.Google Scholar
  38. Nordgård, T., & Åfarli, T. (1990). Generativ syntaks. Ei innføring via norsk. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
  39. Pylkkänen, L., & McElree, B. (2006). The syntax-semantics interface: On-line composition of sentence meaning. In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 537–577). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  40. R Development Core Team. (2007). A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  41. Reich, I. (2009). “Asymmetrische Koordination” im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  42. Röhrig, S., Schlesewski, M., Schumacher, P. B., & Meibauer, J. (2011, June). Und = ∧?!. Poster presented at the XPrag 2011 conference, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  43. Rothstein, S. (Ed.). (2008). Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  44. Sandström, G. (1993). When-clauses and the temporal interpretation of narrative discourse. PhD thesis, University of Umeå, Umeå.Google Scholar
  45. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Vlach, F. (1993). Temporal adverbials, tenses, and the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 231–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Von Stechow, A. (2009). Tenses in compositional semantics. In W. Klein & P. Li (Eds.), The expressions of time in language (pp. 129–166). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  48. Zeevat, H. (2014). Language production and interpretation: Linguistics meets cognition. BrillGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bergljot Behrens
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen
    • 1
  • Lyn Frazier
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Literature, Area Studies and European LanguagesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations