Effects of discourse on control
This study examined discourse effects on obligatory and non-obligatory control interpretations. Seventy participants undertook three online forced-choice surveys, which monitored preferred interpretations in complement control, verbal gerund subject control, long-distance control and sentence-final...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of linguistics 2017-08, Vol.53 (3), p.533-565 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 565 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 533 |
| container_title | Journal of linguistics |
| container_volume | 53 |
| creator | JANKE, VIKKI BAILEY, LAURA R. |
| description | This study examined discourse effects on obligatory and non-obligatory control interpretations. Seventy participants undertook three online forced-choice surveys, which monitored preferred interpretations in complement control, verbal gerund subject control, long-distance control and sentence-final temporal adjunct control. Survey 1 ascertained their baseline interpretations of the empty category in these constructions. Survey 2 primed the critical sentences used in survey 1 with a weakly established topic of discourse and survey 3 primed them with a strongly established one. Reference assignment in complement control remained consistent across all three conditions, illustrating that pragmatics does not infiltrate this structurally regulated and syntactically unambiguous construction. Changes in interpretation were found in the remaining three constructions. An accessibility-motivated scale of influence, combining three independent discourse factors (topichood, competition and linear distance) was created to model reference determination in verbal gerund subject control and long-distance control. The results for temporal adjunct control are novel. They revealed a much stronger susceptibility to pragmatic interference than that reported in the literature yet the construction behaved differently from non-obligatory control under discourse pressure. We propose a structural account for sentence-final temporal adjunct control, which permits the evident interpretation shift while still excluding arbitrary and sentence-external interpretations. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0022226716000281 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1916673575</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26570759</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26570759</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-27fd0e0eae4effefef4c29c1d9c5562d128954c924218cc5d4992722a411f6313</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplUEtLxDAQDqJgXf0BHsSC5-rM5NUcZdlVYcGDeg4lTWCXtVmT7sF_b0rFizOHGfgeM3yMXSPcI6B-eAOgUkqjgrK2eMIqFMo0Wgs6ZdUENxN-zi5y3gEgB9NW7HYVgndjrmOo-2128Ziyr-NQuziMKe4v2Vno9tlf_c4F-1iv3pfPzeb16WX5uGkcb9XYkA49ePCdF74YlhaOjMPeOCkV9UitkcIZEoStc7IXxpAm6gRiUBz5gt3NvocUv44-j3ZXXhnKSYsGldJcallYOLNcijknH-whbT-79G0R7JSD_ZdD0dzMml0eY_oTkJIatDT8BzKfVxM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1916673575</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of discourse on control</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Cambridge Journals</source><creator>JANKE, VIKKI ; BAILEY, LAURA R.</creator><creatorcontrib>JANKE, VIKKI ; BAILEY, LAURA R.</creatorcontrib><description>This study examined discourse effects on obligatory and non-obligatory control interpretations. Seventy participants undertook three online forced-choice surveys, which monitored preferred interpretations in complement control, verbal gerund subject control, long-distance control and sentence-final temporal adjunct control. Survey 1 ascertained their baseline interpretations of the empty category in these constructions. Survey 2 primed the critical sentences used in survey 1 with a weakly established topic of discourse and survey 3 primed them with a strongly established one. Reference assignment in complement control remained consistent across all three conditions, illustrating that pragmatics does not infiltrate this structurally regulated and syntactically unambiguous construction. Changes in interpretation were found in the remaining three constructions. An accessibility-motivated scale of influence, combining three independent discourse factors (topichood, competition and linear distance) was created to model reference determination in verbal gerund subject control and long-distance control. The results for temporal adjunct control are novel. They revealed a much stronger susceptibility to pragmatic interference than that reported in the literature yet the construction behaved differently from non-obligatory control under discourse pressure. We propose a structural account for sentence-final temporal adjunct control, which permits the evident interpretation shift while still excluding arbitrary and sentence-external interpretations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-2267</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-7742</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0022226716000281</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Access ; Ambiguity ; Control theory ; Discourse ; Empty categories ; Exegesis & hermeneutics ; Flexibility ; Grammar ; Grammatical subject ; Learning transfer ; Linguistics ; Literary devices ; Literary influences ; Narrative techniques ; Polls & surveys ; Pragmatics ; Sentence structure ; Susceptibility ; Syntactic structures ; Websites</subject><ispartof>Journal of linguistics, 2017-08, Vol.53 (3), p.533-565</ispartof><rights>Cambridge University Press 2016</rights><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-27fd0e0eae4effefef4c29c1d9c5562d128954c924218cc5d4992722a411f6313</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-27fd0e0eae4effefef4c29c1d9c5562d128954c924218cc5d4992722a411f6313</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26570759$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26570759$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>JANKE, VIKKI</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BAILEY, LAURA R.</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of discourse on control</title><title>Journal of linguistics</title><description>This study examined discourse effects on obligatory and non-obligatory control interpretations. Seventy participants undertook three online forced-choice surveys, which monitored preferred interpretations in complement control, verbal gerund subject control, long-distance control and sentence-final temporal adjunct control. Survey 1 ascertained their baseline interpretations of the empty category in these constructions. Survey 2 primed the critical sentences used in survey 1 with a weakly established topic of discourse and survey 3 primed them with a strongly established one. Reference assignment in complement control remained consistent across all three conditions, illustrating that pragmatics does not infiltrate this structurally regulated and syntactically unambiguous construction. Changes in interpretation were found in the remaining three constructions. An accessibility-motivated scale of influence, combining three independent discourse factors (topichood, competition and linear distance) was created to model reference determination in verbal gerund subject control and long-distance control. The results for temporal adjunct control are novel. They revealed a much stronger susceptibility to pragmatic interference than that reported in the literature yet the construction behaved differently from non-obligatory control under discourse pressure. We propose a structural account for sentence-final temporal adjunct control, which permits the evident interpretation shift while still excluding arbitrary and sentence-external interpretations.</description><subject>Access</subject><subject>Ambiguity</subject><subject>Control theory</subject><subject>Discourse</subject><subject>Empty categories</subject><subject>Exegesis & hermeneutics</subject><subject>Flexibility</subject><subject>Grammar</subject><subject>Grammatical subject</subject><subject>Learning transfer</subject><subject>Linguistics</subject><subject>Literary devices</subject><subject>Literary influences</subject><subject>Narrative techniques</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Pragmatics</subject><subject>Sentence structure</subject><subject>Susceptibility</subject><subject>Syntactic structures</subject><subject>Websites</subject><issn>0022-2267</issn><issn>1469-7742</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><sourceid>PAF</sourceid><sourceid>PQLNA</sourceid><sourceid>PROLI</sourceid><recordid>eNplUEtLxDAQDqJgXf0BHsSC5-rM5NUcZdlVYcGDeg4lTWCXtVmT7sF_b0rFizOHGfgeM3yMXSPcI6B-eAOgUkqjgrK2eMIqFMo0Wgs6ZdUENxN-zi5y3gEgB9NW7HYVgndjrmOo-2128Ziyr-NQuziMKe4v2Vno9tlf_c4F-1iv3pfPzeb16WX5uGkcb9XYkA49ePCdF74YlhaOjMPeOCkV9UitkcIZEoStc7IXxpAm6gRiUBz5gt3NvocUv44-j3ZXXhnKSYsGldJcallYOLNcijknH-whbT-79G0R7JSD_ZdD0dzMml0eY_oTkJIatDT8BzKfVxM</recordid><startdate>20170801</startdate><enddate>20170801</enddate><creator>JANKE, VIKKI</creator><creator>BAILEY, LAURA R.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8BM</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CLO</scope><scope>CPGLG</scope><scope>CRLPW</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PAF</scope><scope>PPXUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQLNA</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PROLI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170801</creationdate><title>Effects of discourse on control</title><author>JANKE, VIKKI ; BAILEY, LAURA R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-27fd0e0eae4effefef4c29c1d9c5562d128954c924218cc5d4992722a411f6313</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Access</topic><topic>Ambiguity</topic><topic>Control theory</topic><topic>Discourse</topic><topic>Empty categories</topic><topic>Exegesis & hermeneutics</topic><topic>Flexibility</topic><topic>Grammar</topic><topic>Grammatical subject</topic><topic>Learning transfer</topic><topic>Linguistics</topic><topic>Literary devices</topic><topic>Literary influences</topic><topic>Narrative techniques</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Pragmatics</topic><topic>Sentence structure</topic><topic>Susceptibility</topic><topic>Syntactic structures</topic><topic>Websites</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>JANKE, VIKKI</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BAILEY, LAURA R.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Literature Online Core (LION Core) (legacy)</collection><collection>Linguistics Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Learning: Literature</collection><collection>Literature Online Premium (LION Premium) (legacy)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>Literature Online (LION) - US Customers Only</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Literature Online (LION)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of linguistics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>JANKE, VIKKI</au><au>BAILEY, LAURA R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of discourse on control</atitle><jtitle>Journal of linguistics</jtitle><date>2017-08-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>53</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>533</spage><epage>565</epage><pages>533-565</pages><issn>0022-2267</issn><eissn>1469-7742</eissn><abstract>This study examined discourse effects on obligatory and non-obligatory control interpretations. Seventy participants undertook three online forced-choice surveys, which monitored preferred interpretations in complement control, verbal gerund subject control, long-distance control and sentence-final temporal adjunct control. Survey 1 ascertained their baseline interpretations of the empty category in these constructions. Survey 2 primed the critical sentences used in survey 1 with a weakly established topic of discourse and survey 3 primed them with a strongly established one. Reference assignment in complement control remained consistent across all three conditions, illustrating that pragmatics does not infiltrate this structurally regulated and syntactically unambiguous construction. Changes in interpretation were found in the remaining three constructions. An accessibility-motivated scale of influence, combining three independent discourse factors (topichood, competition and linear distance) was created to model reference determination in verbal gerund subject control and long-distance control. The results for temporal adjunct control are novel. They revealed a much stronger susceptibility to pragmatic interference than that reported in the literature yet the construction behaved differently from non-obligatory control under discourse pressure. We propose a structural account for sentence-final temporal adjunct control, which permits the evident interpretation shift while still excluding arbitrary and sentence-external interpretations.</abstract><cop>Cambridge</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0022226716000281</doi><tpages>33</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0022-2267 |
| ispartof | Journal of linguistics, 2017-08, Vol.53 (3), p.533-565 |
| issn | 0022-2267 1469-7742 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1916673575 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Cambridge Journals |
| subjects | Access Ambiguity Control theory Discourse Empty categories Exegesis & hermeneutics Flexibility Grammar Grammatical subject Learning transfer Linguistics Literary devices Literary influences Narrative techniques Polls & surveys Pragmatics Sentence structure Susceptibility Syntactic structures Websites |
| title | Effects of discourse on control |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T11%3A30%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20discourse%20on%20control&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20linguistics&rft.au=JANKE,%20VIKKI&rft.date=2017-08-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=533&rft.epage=565&rft.pages=533-565&rft.issn=0022-2267&rft.eissn=1469-7742&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0022226716000281&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26570759%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1916673575&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26570759&rfr_iscdi=true |