Judgments of Grammaticality of Japanese Sentences Violating the Principle of Full Interpretation

Two experiments investigated the linguistic intuition of Japanese speakers in which they judged the grammaticality of sentences violating Chomsky's principle of Full Interpretation. Experiment 1 used bitransitive sentences, which included an extra argument that assumed a role of either subjective, dative, or objective on the one hand and that specified semantically a preceding argument or stood in par with it on the other. Findings showed that the speakers judged ungrammatical sentences involving a dative or an objective extra argument as more grammatical than those involving a subjective extra argument. Ungrammatical sentences with an extra specified argument were judged more grammatical than those with an extra par argument when the extra argument was objective. Experiment 2 used sentences that included a verbal noun (VN) comprising a noun followed by a verb, shita (did). Ungrammatical VN sentences contained two arguments given the same objective marker. These sentences were judged to be highly grammatical despite the violation of the principle. Findings suggest that speakers' actual knowledge of language is not fully consistent with the knowledge they are alleged by Chomsky to possess, including the principle of Full Interpretation.     

Faulty Japanese sentences are judged more grammatical when punctuation is used: negative implications for Chomsky's principle of Full Interpretation

88 adult Japanese speakers judged the grammaticality of isolated simple bitransitive sentences involving an uninterpretable extra argument in addition to three legitimate arguments. The sentences thus violated Chomsky's principle of Full Interpretation which prohibits the structure building of a sentence including uninterpretable elements. The primary variable of interest was the presence or absence of punctuation, i.e., commas, which enclosed the extra argument. Findings showed that sentences with punctuation were judged more grammatical than the ones without punctuation, with an average score of judged grammaticality exceeding 3 on a 7-point scale (1 =least grammatical; 7=most grammatical). This score would not be expected if the speakers possess and judge the sentences in conformity with the principle of Full Interpretation.     

Judgments of grammaticality of sentences violating the principle of full interpretation: a further exploration

54 Japanese speakers judged isolated simple bitransitive sentences involving an unnecessary extra argument in addition to three legitimate arguments. Two variables were manipulated, with one variable concerning the role the extra argument assumed in a sentence, subjective, dative, or objective and the other concerning the relation it bore with the legitimate argument. The sentences with the extra arguments were judged to be an average grammaticality of about 3 on a 7-point scale. This score, although still lower than that obtained for sentences involving only the legitimate arguments, suggests that speakers' judgments are not fully consistent with the judgments expected if they might possess and demonstrate the knowledge of the principle of Full Interpretation.     

Judgments of grammaticality of sentences with a differing number of arguments: a comparison of English and Japanese speakers

This study explored native speakers' linguistic intuition as revealed in judging the grammaticality of sentences. Speakers of English (n = 36) and Japanese (n = 57) judged the relative grammaticality of sentences involving a verb which occurred together with one, two or three arguments. Findings showed that English speakers were more affected by the number of arguments in sentences. They judged sentences having three arguments as grammatical most often and ones having one or two arguments as grammatical less often. However, Japanese speakers gave rather similar and more grammatical judgments regardless of the number of arguments in sentences. The findings indicate a difference in tightness of argument structure in the two languages even when the sentences judged are simple sentences and they are given without any sentential context.     

On-line and off-line reflexive resolution in Japanese logophoric sentences

This study investigates on-line and off-line resolution of a Japanese reflexive,jibun, for logophoric sentences, i.e., complex sentences involving a matrix verb that reflects one's point of view feelings, or state of consciousness, and for nonlogophoric sentences, i.e., complex sentences involving a subordinate adverbial clause. According to Kuroda's (1973) thesis and Chomsky's (1981) binding principle (for nonlogophoric sentences only), the reflexive in the logophoric sentences can be associated with the subject of both a matrix sentence and a subordinate sentence whereas that in the nonlogophoric sentences can only be associated with the subject of the subordinate sentence. In Experiment 1, 42 students were administered a probe-recognition task in which a probe was given for the subject either of the matrix sentence or of the subordinate sentence immediately after the end of the subordinate clause or at the end of a sentence following the matrix verb. Recognition times were faster for a matrix-subject probe than for a subordinatesubject probe regardless of the sentence type and probe position. In Experiment 2, 40 students were administered an on-line antecedent identification task in which they were required to quickly and accurately identify, when given a probe, the antecedent of the reflexive, with the probe given after the reflexive or at the end of a sentence. Regardless of the sentence type, matrix-subject was judged to be the antecedent of the reflexive more often than subordinate-subject, with the effect of probe position being negligible. An offline study required 136 students to indicate the antecedent(s) for the two types of sentence given in their entirety. No effect of sentence type was found. Findings indicate that neither Kuroda's thesis nor Chomsky's binding principle is applied when Japanese speakers parse logophoric and nonlogophoric sentences.Part of this study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, No. 05610067. Deep gratitude is due to Professor D. D. Steinberg for reading an earlier version of this paper. Thanks are also due to Ms. S. Ogawa for her help in collecting part of the off-line data.     

Two kinds of reasoning

According to one view of reasoning, people can evaluate arguments in at least two qualitatively different ways: in terms of their deductive correctness and in terms of their inductive strength. According to a second view, assessments of both correctness and strength are a function of an argument's position on a single psychological continuum (e.g., subjective conditional probability). A deductively correct argument is one with the maximum value on this continuum; a strong argument is one with a high value. The present experiment tested these theories by asking participants to evaluate the same set of arguments for correctness and strength. The results produced an interaction between type of argument and instructions: In some conditions, participants judged one argument deductively correct more often than a second, but judged the second argument inductively strong more often than the first. This finding supports the view that people have distinct ways to evaluate arguments.     

Do incompatible arguments cause extensive processing in the evaluation of arguments? The role of congruence between argument compatibility and argument quality

Previous studies have demonstrated that arguments incompatible with prior beliefs are subjected to more extensive refutational processing, scrutinized longer, and judged to be weaker than arguments compatible with prior beliefs. However, this study suggests whether extensive processing is implemented when evaluating arguments is not decided by argument compatibility, but by congruence between two evaluating tendencies elicited by both argument compatibility and argument quality. Consistent with this perspective, the results of two experiments show that relative to congruent arguments, participants judged arguments eliciting incongruent evaluating tendencies as less extreme in strength, spent more time, and felt more hesitant generating strength judgments for them. The results also show that it is mainly incongruent arguments, not congruent arguments, whose strength ratings were more closely associated with the perceived personal importance of the issue, which intensified the tendency to evaluate arguments depending on argument compatibility. These results suggest that it is the incongruity between argument compatibility and argument quality, and not simply the argument compatibility, that plays a more important role in activating an extensive processing in the evaluation of arguments.     

The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: evidence from event-related potentials

Recent event-related potential studies report a P600 effect to incongruous verbs preceded by semantically associated inanimate noun-phrase (NP) arguments, e.g., "eat" in "At breakfast the eggs would eat...". This P600 effect may reflect the processing cost incurred when semantic-thematic relationships between critical verbs and their preceding NP argument(s) bias towards different interpretations to those dictated by their sentences' syntactic structures. We have termed such violations of alternative thematic roles, 'thematic role violations.' Semantic-thematic relationships are influenced both by semantic associations and by more basic semantic features, such as a noun's animacy. This study determined whether a P600 effect can be evoked by verbs whose thematic structures are violated by their preceding inanimate NP arguments, even in the absence of close semantic-associative relationships with these arguments or their preceding contexts. ERPs were measured to verbs under four conditions: (1) non-violated ("At breakfast the boys would eat..."); (2) preceded by introductory clauses and animate NPs that violated their pragmatic expectations but not their thematic structures ("At breakfast the boys would plant..."); (3) preceded by semantically related contexts but inanimate NPs that violated their thematic structures ("At breakfast the eggs would eat..."); (4) preceded by semantically unrelated contexts and inanimate NPs that also violated their thematic structures ("At breakfast the eggs would plant..."). Pragmatically non-thematic role violated verbs preceded by unrelated contexts and animate NPs evoked robust N400 effects and small P600 effects. Thematically violated verbs preceded by inanimate argument NPs evoked robust P600 effects but no N400 effects, regardless of whether these inanimate arguments or their preceding contexts were semantically related or unrelated to these verbs. These findings suggest that semantic-thematic relations, related to animacy constraints on verbs' arguments, are computed online and can immediately impact verb processing within active, English sentences.     

An ERP investigation of binding and coreference

This study examines the nature of violations in processing one class of binding construction, namely those involving reflexives and their antecedents. When arguments of verbs appear at the point where a syntactic violation is detected, a centroparietal positivity occurs, peaking at 600 ms after the presentation of the stimulus (P600), as is consistent with other types of syntactic anomalies. However, nonarguments in similar sentences fail to elicit the same response. For example, the reflexive in "John's brothers like himself" is in an argument position and elicits the P600 when compared to its grammatical counterpart. The nonargument, participating in the same type of mismatch, "John's brothers like Bill and himself," does not elicit the same positivity. This provides evidence that there are two processes involved in parsing this binding construction, one syntactic and another as yet unidentified, perhaps involving meaning or pragmatics.     

句子结构与控制动词类型对题元角色指派的影响

扩展论元依存模型认为：语序固定语言的题元角色指派依赖论元的语序线索; 论元线索与动词论元表征不一致时, 题元角色再分析会产生额外的加工负荷。为检验该模型, 本研究采用眼动记录方法, 实验为2 (句子结构：居中、前置) × 2 (控制动词类型：主语控制、宾语控制)被试内设计。通过操纵句子结构, 考察汉语读者对语序线索的依赖性; 通过操纵控制动词类型, 考察汉语论元线索与动词论元表征的一致性对题元角色指派的影响。结果发现：(1)前置结构的句子在名词1、名词2和动词区域的阅读时间和回视次数多于居中结构的句子; (2)宾语控制动词条件在动词和动词后区域的第二遍阅读时间和总回视次数多于主语控制动词条件; (3)在居中结构中, 宾语控制动词条件在名词2和动词区域的阅读时间和回视次数多于主语控制动词条件; 在前置结构中, 宾语控制动词条件在动词后区域的阅读时间多于主语控制动词条件。结果支持扩展论元依存模型。     

Connectionism and three levels of nativism

Along with the increasing popularity of connectionist language models has come a number of provocative suggestions about the challenge these models present to Chomsky's arguments for nativism. The aim of this paper is to assess these claims. We begin by reconstructing Chomsky's argument from the poverty of the stimulus and arguing that it is best understood as three related arguments, with increasingly strong conclusions. Next, we provide a brief introduction to connectionism and give a quick survey of recent efforts to develop networks that model various aspects of human linguistic behavior. Finally, we explore the implications of this research for Chomsky's arguments. Our claim is that the relation between connectionism and Chomsky's views on innate knowledge is more complicated than many have assumed, and that even if these models enjoy considerable success the threat they pose for linguistic nativism is small.     

Memory for the intentions of sentences

Memory for the intentions of sentences was studied in two recognition tasks. In each study, Ss first acted out a dialogue written for two people. They then judged whether certain sentences in a second dialogue were the same as or different from previons sentences (Experiment I) or chose between two intentions suggested for some previous sentences (Experiment II) Sentences which were repeated with the same intention across the two dialogues were judged as being the same significantly more often than were sentences repeated with a different intention. The appropriate intention for each of these sentences was also usually chosen. In both studies, Ss appeared to remember more accurately the sentences they had spoken themselves than they did those that were addressed to them.     

Processing Down the Garden Path in Japanese: Processing of Sentences with Lexical Homonyms

This paper investigates whether or not Japanese sentences with lexical homonyms cause measurable processing difficulties for Japanese speakers. Pairs of sentences involving lexical homonyms were tested with three types of questionnaires (who-did-what questions, difficulty ratings, and misleadingness ratings) and two experimental tests (an eye-movement monitoring experiment and a self-paced reading experiment). In both the difficulty rating and the misleadingness rating questionnaires, late boundary sentences, in which a phrase boundary followed a homonymous phrase, were rated as significantly more difficult and more misleading than early boundary sentences, where the boundary preceded the homonymous phrase. The results from the eye-movement study and the self-paced reading study showed that the late boundary difficulties were associated with the processing of the regions that followed the homonymous phrases. These results confirmed our prediction that the difficulty of late boundary sentences is likely to be caused by a subject's original misanalysis and subsequent revision. The results are discussed in terms of possible reasons why the early boundary version was preferred in these sentences.     

The influence of argument structure on judgements of argument strength, function, and adequacy

The present study explored the extent to which lay adults consider aspects of argument structure in judging the strength and function of informal arguments and in constructing arguments to meet specific adequacy goals. Across two experiments, college students were presented with base (one-premise) arguments, which were then expanded into convergent, coordinate, and subordinate arguments closely matched in terms of content, believability, and strength. Coordinate arguments were associated with the greatest gains in argument strength via their construction and the greatest loss in strength when one of their premises was falsified. To some degree, the argument types were also judged to perform different functions and to serve different goals. The construction of convergent arguments was associated with building independent lines of support while the construction of subordinate arguments was associated with providing justification for premises. Expansion into a coordinate argument was seen as the best way to improve an argument's persuasiveness. The construction of both coordinate and subordinate arguments was associated with building relevance, explicating assumptions, and completing the meaning of a base argument. Results are discussed in terms of argumentation theory and research.     

The influence of argument structure on judgements of argument strength,function, and adequacy

The present study explored the extent to which lay adults consider aspects of argument structure in judging the strength and function of informal arguments and in constructing arguments to meet specific adequacy goals. Across two experiments, college students were presented with base (one-premise) arguments, which were then expanded into convergent, coordinate, and subordinate arguments closely matched in terms of content, believability, and strength. Coordinate arguments were associated with the greatest gains in argument strength via their construction and the greatest loss in strength when one of their premises was falsified. To some degree, the argument types were also judged to perform different functions and to serve different goals. The construction of convergent arguments was associated with building independent lines of support while the construction of subordinate arguments was associated with providing justification for premises. Expansion into a coordinate argument was seen as the best way to improve an argument's persuasiveness. The construction of both coordinate and subordinate arguments was associated with building relevance, explicating assumptions, and completing the meaning of a base argument. Results are discussed in terms of argumentation theory and research.     

First insights on “neuropedagogy of reasoning”

Statements that share an explanation tend to lend inductive support to one another. For example, being told that Many furniture movers have a hard time financing a house increases the judged probability that Secretaries have a hard time financing a house. In contrast, statements with different explanations reduce one another s judged probability. Being told that Many furniture movers have bad backs decreases the judged probability that Secretaries have bad backs. I pose two questions concerning such discounting effects. First, does the reduction depend on explanations being mutually incompatible or does it occur when explanations are deemed irrelevant to one another? I found that a small discounting effect occurred with statements that were blatantly unrelated. However, the discounting effect also depended on a factor external to the argument being judged; the composition of the argument set. Second, are explanation effects attributable to changes in the belief afforded statements or to response-specific changes resulting from misunderstanding of the probability rating task or response bias? The results implicate changes in belief. Prior belief influenced conditional probability more than argument strength judgements, as it would if participants understood the tasks in the same way as the experimenter. Also, conditional probability true and false judgements were complementary, suggesting no response bias.     

When forewarning backfires: Paradoxical effects of elaborating social feedback on entrapment in a losing course of action

Entrapment occurs if people persist with losing courses of action. In two experiments, we show how elaborating social feedback (i.e., premature praise or forewarning regarding the chosen course of action) can have paradoxical effects on entrapment. The participants acted as head of a translation department and had to choose one out of four possible translation strategies for their employees. After choosing, they read four arguments (presumably written by former participants) which were either all in favor of the strategy chosen, all against it, or mixed. Half of the participants only read these arguments, whereas the other half elaborated on them by providing written comments (Experiment 1). The results showed that elaborating on other persons' arguments led to stronger entrapment, independently of whether the arguments were positive or negative. This pattern was due to biased argument processing: Whereas confirming thoughts were generated for positive arguments, negative arguments were refuted. Experiment 2 confirmed that this biased argument processing caused subsequent entrapment. These results indicate that elaborating any type of argument can lead to heightened entrapment and, hence, forewarning can backfire. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Two contextualist fallacies

I examine the radical contextualists’ two main arguments for the semantic underdeterminacy thesis, according to which all, or almost all, English sentences lack context-independent truth conditions. I show that both arguments are fallacious. The first argument, which I call the fallacy of the many understandings, mistakenly infers that a sentence S is semantically incomplete from the fact that S can be used to mean different things in different contexts. The second argument, which I call the open texture fallacy, wrongly concludes that a sentence S lacks context-independent truth conditions from the fact that there are circumstances in which the truth value of S would be indeterminate. I do however defend the claim that a certain class of sentences not containing any indexicals do lack context-independent truth conditions, and put forward an argument to that effect. But this argument, as I show, does not generalize to all sentences, and thus fails to support the semantic underdeterminacy thesis.     

Given-New Ordering Effects on the Production of Scrambled Sentences in Japanese

Across many languages, speakers tend to produce sentences so that given (previously referred to) arguments are mentioned before new arguments; this is termed given-new ordering. We explored the nature of such given-new effects in Japanese using a procedure following Bock and Irwin (1980). Speakers encoded and then recalled canonical (e.g., okusan-ga otetsudaisan-ni purezento-o okutta, the housewife gave the housekeeper a present) or scrambled (okusan-ga purezento-o otetsudaisan-ni okutta) dative targets when prompted by a statement-question sequence. The prompting statement established one nonsubject argument of the dative target as given, leaving the other nonsubject argument as new. Previous mention was either with lexically identical content (e.g., otetsudaisan or purezento) or with lexically distinct but nearly synonymous content (meidosan, housemaid or okurimono, gift). Results showed that speakers produced canonical or scrambled word orders so that given arguments were mentioned before new, but especially when the previous mention of the given argument occurred with lexically identical content (replicating Bock and Irwin's English effect). These results show that the production of Japanese scrambled and canonical word orders is sensitive to given versus new status (as in English), implying that given-new ordering arises at the stage of sentence production where scrambling effects are realized.     

THE STRUCTURE OF SCEPTICAL ARGUMENTS

It is nowadays taken for granted that the core radical sceptical arguments all pivot upon the principle that the epistemic operator in question is 'closed' under known entailments. Accordingly, the standard anti-sceptical project now involves either denying closure or retaining closure by amending how one understands other elements of the sceptical argument. However, there are epistemic principles available to the sceptic which are logically weaker than closure but achieve the same result. Accordingly the contemporary debate fails to engage with the sceptical problem in its strongest form.