Anna Verbuk | Wheelock College (original) (raw)

Papers by Anna Verbuk

Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 2008

In our L1 acquisition experiment, we tested between the Language-based and Rationality-based acco... more In our L1 acquisition experiment, we tested between the Language-based and Rationality-based accounts of how Relevance implicatures are computed, and found support for the Language-based account but not the Rationality-based account. While on the Language-based account (eg, Horn 1984, Levinson 2000), Relevance implicatures are situated within the language module, on the Rationality-based account (Kasher 1991), they are not situated within the language module, and are interpreted as being derived by rationality-based ...

A theoretical distinction between Horn and pragmatic scales that are instrumental in generating s... more A theoretical distinction between Horn and pragmatic scales that are instrumental in generating scalar implicatures (SIs) is widely accepted in neo-Gricean pragmatics; at the same time, this distinction has been questioned in some neo-Gricean and post-Gricean accounts of SIs. In order to explore whether or not this distinction has a reflex on the way in which children acquire SIs, I tested 40 children (4;3-7;7) on computing SIs based on Horn and pragmatic scales. If this distinction is postulated, children are predicted to perform better on computing SIs based on Horn scales. In my experiment, children did significantly better on computing SIs based on pragmatic scales. Moreover, children performed worse on certain Horn scales than on the pragmatic scales, and better on other Horn scales than on the pragmatic scales.

We argue that the debate over the delay of Principle B effects needs to include an additional cla... more We argue that the debate over the delay of Principle B effects needs to include an additional class of contexts: Evans-style or Exceptional Coreference contexts (ECCs) (e.g., "It's not true that no one voted for John. John 1 voted for him 1 "). Our experiment compares acquisition of regular Principle B contexts (Bcontexts) and ECCs by English-speaking children. (T&W) predict that there will be no age at which the acceptance of the disjoint reference reading is significantly higher in ECCs than in B-contexts, while Reinhart (to appear), in contrast, predicts gradual trends towards more adult-like performance in each condition; we tested each of these predictions. Our experimental results are incompatible with T&W and are compatible with Reinhart (to appear). Our results are also compatible with our own account on which ECCs pose additional pragmatic challenges compared to B-contexts.

This paper focuses on investigating the interplay of linguistic and non-linguistic factors in fir... more This paper focuses on investigating the interplay of linguistic and non-linguistic factors in first language development of conversational competence. We explore the borderline between linguistic and non-linguistic inferences from the standpoint of first language acquisition. To this end, we tested children on computing Relevance implicatures, which are linguistic inferences, and on making non-linguistic inferences that are parallel in nature to Relevance implicatures. Our experimental results provide support for the Language-based account 1 of Relevance implicatures, and by extension, conversational implicatures, and provide evidence against the competing Rationality-based account of these meanings. As was predicted by the Language-based account but not by the Rationality-based account, we found that computing Relevance implicatures was more challenging for children than computing non-linguistic A B S T R A C T In our L1 acquisition experiment, we tested between the Language-based and Rationalitybased accounts of how Relevance implicatures are computed, and found support for the Language-based account but not the Rationality-based account. While on the Languagebased account (e.g., , Relevance implicatures are situated within the language module, on the Rationality-based account (Kasher, 1991), they are not situated within the language module, and are interpreted as being derived by Rationalitybased reasoning, which is also instrumental in deriving non-linguistic inferences.

Russian predicate cleft constructions have the surprising property of being associated with adver... more Russian predicate cleft constructions have the surprising property of being associated with adversative clauses of the opposite polarity. I argue that clefts are associated with adversative clauses because they have the semantics of S-T o p i c s i n B ü r i n g ' s ( 1 9 9 7 , 2 0 0 0 ) s e n s e o f t h e t e r m. I t is shown that the polarity of the adversative clause is obligatorily opposed to that of the cleft because the use of a cleft gives rise to a relevance-based pragmatic scale. The ordering principle according to which these scales are organized is relevance to the question-under-discussion.

Syntactically, Russian predicate clefts (RPCs) have been shown to be instances of VP-preposing (A... more Syntactically, Russian predicate clefts (RPCs) have been shown to be instances of VP-preposing (Abels, 2001). The present paper is devoted to exploring the semantics, pragmatics and discourse function of RPCs. RPCs have the surprising property of being associated with adversative clauses of the opposite polarity. This distributional fact is the main puzzle that this paper addresses. It is argued that the association of RPCs with adversative clauses is due to the fact that RPCs are S-Topic constructions i n B ü r i n g ' s (1997) sense of the term S-Topic 1 . S-Topics have a special discourse strategy associated with them; this strategy consists of implicating the relevance of a set of questions that are sisters to the question dominating the sentence containing the S-Topic. Phonologically, an S-Topic is marked by an accent that is different from the focus accent. In order to make the case for analyzing RPCs as S-Topic constructions, their intonational and discourse properties will be explored in detail. The paper is organized as follows. In section 1, contexts in which RPCs are used and their association with adversative clauses are discussed. Section 2 is concerned with the intonational properties of RPCs. In section 3, Bü r i n g ' s t h e o r y o f S-Topics is introduced and a case is made for analyzing RPCs as S-Topic constructions. A compositional analysis of RPCs is provided. In section 4, it is argued that the association of RPCs with adversative clauses of the opposite polarity is due to the fact that RPCs have discourse function of implicating the relevance of a particular question that is sister to the question dominating the predicate cleft and the overt or implicit adversative clause provides an answer to * I would like to thank Chris Potts and Barbara Partee for the insightful criticism of this work and John Kingston for his help with interpreting pitch tracks. I am also grateful for the helpful comments made by the audiences at FSIM and FASL 14. Thanks are also due to my fellow students at UMass, Amherst. All remaining errors are my own.

Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 2008

In our L1 acquisition experiment, we tested between the Language-based and Rationality-based acco... more In our L1 acquisition experiment, we tested between the Language-based and Rationality-based accounts of how Relevance implicatures are computed, and found support for the Language-based account but not the Rationality-based account. While on the Language-based account (eg, Horn 1984, Levinson 2000), Relevance implicatures are situated within the language module, on the Rationality-based account (Kasher 1991), they are not situated within the language module, and are interpreted as being derived by rationality-based ...

A theoretical distinction between Horn and pragmatic scales that are instrumental in generating s... more A theoretical distinction between Horn and pragmatic scales that are instrumental in generating scalar implicatures (SIs) is widely accepted in neo-Gricean pragmatics; at the same time, this distinction has been questioned in some neo-Gricean and post-Gricean accounts of SIs. In order to explore whether or not this distinction has a reflex on the way in which children acquire SIs, I tested 40 children (4;3-7;7) on computing SIs based on Horn and pragmatic scales. If this distinction is postulated, children are predicted to perform better on computing SIs based on Horn scales. In my experiment, children did significantly better on computing SIs based on pragmatic scales. Moreover, children performed worse on certain Horn scales than on the pragmatic scales, and better on other Horn scales than on the pragmatic scales.

We argue that the debate over the delay of Principle B effects needs to include an additional cla... more We argue that the debate over the delay of Principle B effects needs to include an additional class of contexts: Evans-style or Exceptional Coreference contexts (ECCs) (e.g., "It's not true that no one voted for John. John 1 voted for him 1 "). Our experiment compares acquisition of regular Principle B contexts (Bcontexts) and ECCs by English-speaking children. (T&W) predict that there will be no age at which the acceptance of the disjoint reference reading is significantly higher in ECCs than in B-contexts, while Reinhart (to appear), in contrast, predicts gradual trends towards more adult-like performance in each condition; we tested each of these predictions. Our experimental results are incompatible with T&W and are compatible with Reinhart (to appear). Our results are also compatible with our own account on which ECCs pose additional pragmatic challenges compared to B-contexts.

This paper focuses on investigating the interplay of linguistic and non-linguistic factors in fir... more This paper focuses on investigating the interplay of linguistic and non-linguistic factors in first language development of conversational competence. We explore the borderline between linguistic and non-linguistic inferences from the standpoint of first language acquisition. To this end, we tested children on computing Relevance implicatures, which are linguistic inferences, and on making non-linguistic inferences that are parallel in nature to Relevance implicatures. Our experimental results provide support for the Language-based account 1 of Relevance implicatures, and by extension, conversational implicatures, and provide evidence against the competing Rationality-based account of these meanings. As was predicted by the Language-based account but not by the Rationality-based account, we found that computing Relevance implicatures was more challenging for children than computing non-linguistic A B S T R A C T In our L1 acquisition experiment, we tested between the Language-based and Rationalitybased accounts of how Relevance implicatures are computed, and found support for the Language-based account but not the Rationality-based account. While on the Languagebased account (e.g., , Relevance implicatures are situated within the language module, on the Rationality-based account (Kasher, 1991), they are not situated within the language module, and are interpreted as being derived by Rationalitybased reasoning, which is also instrumental in deriving non-linguistic inferences.

Russian predicate cleft constructions have the surprising property of being associated with adver... more Russian predicate cleft constructions have the surprising property of being associated with adversative clauses of the opposite polarity. I argue that clefts are associated with adversative clauses because they have the semantics of S-T o p i c s i n B ü r i n g ' s ( 1 9 9 7 , 2 0 0 0 ) s e n s e o f t h e t e r m. I t is shown that the polarity of the adversative clause is obligatorily opposed to that of the cleft because the use of a cleft gives rise to a relevance-based pragmatic scale. The ordering principle according to which these scales are organized is relevance to the question-under-discussion.

Syntactically, Russian predicate clefts (RPCs) have been shown to be instances of VP-preposing (A... more Syntactically, Russian predicate clefts (RPCs) have been shown to be instances of VP-preposing (Abels, 2001). The present paper is devoted to exploring the semantics, pragmatics and discourse function of RPCs. RPCs have the surprising property of being associated with adversative clauses of the opposite polarity. This distributional fact is the main puzzle that this paper addresses. It is argued that the association of RPCs with adversative clauses is due to the fact that RPCs are S-Topic constructions i n B ü r i n g ' s (1997) sense of the term S-Topic 1 . S-Topics have a special discourse strategy associated with them; this strategy consists of implicating the relevance of a set of questions that are sisters to the question dominating the sentence containing the S-Topic. Phonologically, an S-Topic is marked by an accent that is different from the focus accent. In order to make the case for analyzing RPCs as S-Topic constructions, their intonational and discourse properties will be explored in detail. The paper is organized as follows. In section 1, contexts in which RPCs are used and their association with adversative clauses are discussed. Section 2 is concerned with the intonational properties of RPCs. In section 3, Bü r i n g ' s t h e o r y o f S-Topics is introduced and a case is made for analyzing RPCs as S-Topic constructions. A compositional analysis of RPCs is provided. In section 4, it is argued that the association of RPCs with adversative clauses of the opposite polarity is due to the fact that RPCs have discourse function of implicating the relevance of a particular question that is sister to the question dominating the predicate cleft and the overt or implicit adversative clause provides an answer to * I would like to thank Chris Potts and Barbara Partee for the insightful criticism of this work and John Kingston for his help with interpreting pitch tracks. I am also grateful for the helpful comments made by the audiences at FSIM and FASL 14. Thanks are also due to my fellow students at UMass, Amherst. All remaining errors are my own.