Volume 62, Issue 6

Chinese has the basic word order of Subject-Verb-Object (SVO), yet it is also known as a topic-prominent language, where an object can be topicalized from within a relative clause as well as from a main clause. In parsing Topic-Subject-Verb (TSV) structures, will a Chinese comprehender have difficulties in recognizing the second noun phrase (NP2) as the subject and in integrating the initial topic noun with the verb? Experience/surprisal-based theories and memory-based theories make testable predications at the NP2 and critically, at the verb. Focusing on these two regions in three self-paced reading experiments, we compared reading time patterns between TSVs and canonical SVOs in simple or complex sentences. Converging evidence showed processing costs at or prior to the NP2 in TSVs compared to SVOs, but no retrieval or integration costs at the verb regardless of dependency lengths. Our results are not predicted by memory-based theories, but are consistent with the predictions of experience/surprisal-based theories, suggesting that Chinese TSV processing is guided by structural frequencies and a universal subject-reading bias, with completion of dependency between topic and the verb (or empty category) likely to be fundamentally semantic.

This study provides new data on the use of agent focus (AF) versus transitive constructions in Kaqchikel. This work follows up on a study done by Heaton et al. (Heaton, Raina, Kamil Deen & William O’Grady. 2016. An investigation of relativization in Kaqchikel Maya. Lingua 170. 35–46) which found that while questioning the subject of a transitive verb regularly requires the use of AF or an antipassive, relativizing the subject of a transitive verb does not. Present findings show that AF is only common in half of the six primary syntactic contexts that allow it, which is unexpected under the assumption that AF is a last resort strategy. I suggest that the differences between these syntactic contexts in Kaqchikel are related to the presence of a preverbal lexical NP element which is available to be interpreted as the agent. Comparative descriptive evidence is also compiled demonstrating that transitive verbs are possible in syntactic contexts that traditionally have been considered to require AF across Eastern Mayan languages.

Antonymy is the lexical relation of opposition. The nature of the oppositeness may differ – e.g., contradictory (‘true’–‘false’) or gradable (‘tall’–‘short’) – and there may be variation as to the relationship in their formal encoding, whether the antonyms are expressed as distinct lexical forms (e.g., true vs. false ) or if one form is derived from the other (e.g., true vs. untrue ). We investigate the relationship between the two members of 37 antonym pairs across 55 spoken languages in order to see whether there are patterns in how antonymy is expressed and which of the two antonym members is more likely to be derived from the other. We find great variation in the extent to which languages use derivation (labeled “neg-constructed forms”) as an antonym-formation strategy. However, when we do find a derived form, this tends to target the member of the pair that is either lower in valence (positive vs. negative) or magnitude (more vs. less), in line with our hypotheses. We also find that antonyms that belong to a core set of property concepts are more likely to encode antonyms as distinct lexical forms, whereas peripheral property concepts are relatively more likely to encode the antonyms with derived forms.

In spontaneous discourse, a speaker sometimes encounters word-formulation trouble, and she may use a ‘placeholder’ (PH) such as whatchamacallit and you-know-what , a dummy expression to be inserted into the slot of a ‘target form’ in the sentence structure of an utterance. It has been widely held that there are two types of usage motives: (i) a speaker cannot produce a target form when, e.g., she does not recall it, or (ii) a speaker does not want to produce a target form when, e.g., it is considered taboo. Previous studies have described the grammatical and functional properties of PHs in a variety of languages, but no study has examined their usage-motive patterns crosslinguistically. In this paper, I propose an implicational hierarchy relating to the usage motives of PHs based on the relevance-theoretic notions of ‘ability’ and ‘preference’ and derive several predictions from this hierarchy, which are tested against PH data in 56 languages. The predictions are mostly confirmed, with some (putative) counterexamples explained by non-cognitive–pragmatic factors (e.g., lexical-semantic factors). As an implication, the hierarchy may also serve as a basis for drawing predictions in other linguistic fields (e.g., language acquisition).

This study explored how non-signers exploit their gestural repertoire during a process of handshape conventionalisation. We examined how communicative context, interaction, and time affect the transition from iconically motivated representations to linguistically organised, generalised forms. One hundred non-signers undertook a silent gesture-elicitation task, describing pictures in one of four conditions: (A) in isolation; (B) with a passive recipient tasked with identifying the objects gestured; (C) with an interlocutor, sharing addressor/addressee roles; (D) with a confederate, sharing addressor/addressee roles, where the confederate restricted her handshapes to four. Analyses focused on whether participants used their hands productively (proportion of ‘hand-as-object’ responses), and whether they generalised handshapes to similarly shaped but different objects (handshape range). High communicative pressure and interaction (C, D) generated the highest proportion of hand-as-object representations. The condition lacking these, (A), generated the smallest handshape range. Results did not change over time. At this incipient stage, individuals exploit their gestural repertoire productively, intent on depicting object characteristics accurately. Communicative pressure and interaction spur this exploratory process. However, they do not yet generalise their handshapes, a development requiring a loosening of the iconic mapping between symbol and referent. This aspect of conventionalisation needs time and might be more likely to emerge in isolation.

The extent to which the grammar of one dialect influences the grammar of another and the mechanisms that bidialectal speakers employ to distinguish a target grammar from non-target grammar have not been adequately investigated. In this study, we elucidate these issues by investigating the grammatical gender of Oromo, a Cushitic language that is spoken in Ethiopia. The results from two successive offline experiments indicate that Oromo bidialectal speakers can differentiate between the grammar of their native dialect and that of a non-native dialect in both spoken and written modes. This finding implies the existence of a dual-system representation of grammar. Moreover, there is a significant amount of dialect mixing that varies across various developmental stages and modalities. The bidialectal speakers’ ability to differentiate between the grammar of their native dialect and that of a non-native dialect is constrained by the magnitude of their exposure to the non-native dialect, modalities, and a specific property of grammatical forms. Here, we propose an interactive dialect separation model that accounts for diverse dialect contexts.

Previous research has identified differences in language use between speakers representing different genders and sexual orientations, as well as stereotypical beliefs about the existence of such differences. The present paper investigates such stereotypical beliefs among speakers of two varieties of Spanish and explores whether linguistic stereotypes of gender and sexual orientation are stronger in a society with more conservative gender roles. We conducted an experiment where 252 speakers of European and Mexican Spanish were shown pairs of texts and sentences depicting the same event but differing in the use of morphosyntactic resources, creating stereotypically “masculine” and “feminine” variants of the same text or sentence. The informants were asked which of the variants was more likely uttered by a woman (rather than a man), a lesbian woman (rather than a straight woman), or a gay man (rather than a straight man). Some of the morphosyntactic features were strongly associated with speaker gender (e.g., use of first- and second-person singular) and others with lesbian (e.g., use of impersonal structures) or gay speakers (e.g., direct reported speech). Contrary to expectations, the responses did not differ according to informants’ age, gender, or nationality. While the present study did not reveal any differences between the two societies, more cross-linguistic and cultural research is needed to elucidate the effect of society on morphosyntactic variation and stereotypes thereof.