Discourse Relations and the Null/Overt Contrast in Mexican Spanish

DiscourseRelationsandtheNull/OvertContrastinMexicanSpanish
Hannah Forsythe forsyt40@msu.edu
Michigan State University
Introduction:
Experiment1:OccasionandResultrelations
Blackwell&Quesada2012,Keatingetal.2015)
(1)MaríasaludóaAna.{Pro/ella}estácontenta.
MaríagreetedAna.{Pro/she}ishappy.
•  differencesininformationstructure(Luján1986,1999)
andbinding(Montalbetti1984)thatalsoapplytoobjects
(2)a.{Pro/ella}estácontenta. Emphasis/contrast
“She/SHEishappy.”
b.Lasquierotrasladar{ø/aellas}.
“Iwanttomovethem/THEM.”
(3)a.Q:InJosei’sclass,whowillpasstheexam?Q/Afocus
A:{*Proi/éli}pasaráelexamen.
{*Proi/hei}willpasstheexam
b.Q:SomeonecallsJoséi’shouse.Whodotheywant?
A:Lobuscan{*øi/aéli}.
CLtheyarelookingfor{*Proi/himi}.
Binding
(4)a.Cadaalumnoicreeque{proi/*éli}pasaráelexamen.
Everystudentthinks{proi/*hei}willpasstheexam.
(F1(1,39)=10.56,p=0.002,F2(1,7)=12.94,p=0.009)
“MariahugsSara{and/but}
SHEhugsJuan.”
•  English:Thedirectionofthestressedvs.unstressed
differencerlippedbetweenconditions(F1(1,208)=10.95p
=0.001,F2(1,7)=11.18p=0.012).
Mexican Spanish
b.Cadaalumnoicreequelamaestralofavorece{øi/*aéli}
Everystudentthinkstheteacherfavors{proi/*himi}.
Ø  Carminati(2002)positsaprocessingdifference:
PositionofAntecedentHypothesis(PAH):Proprefersto
retrieveanantecedentinsubjectposition.
0.8
unstressed
null
*
0.7
*
overt
*
0.5
0.4
0.3
Occasion
Result
Occasion
(5)OCCASION(narrativesequenceofevents)àtopicbias
JuanJhitPedroandthenheJleft.
(9)RESULTaccommodatesreal-worldknowledgeintobackground
JuanhitPedroand
he.[-F]àPedro fell.
HE[+F]àJuan
Background:hit(x,Pedro)!fall(Pedro)
(6)RESULT(cause-effectsequenceofevents)àplausibilitybias
JuanJhitPedroPandso{hePcried/heJapologized}.
Q1:IsthePAHoperativeacrossdifferentDiscourseRelations?
Q2:WhatcantheinteractionbetweenDiscourseRelations
(7)PARALLEL(parallelismofeventsandactors)àparallelism
JuanJhitPedroandheJhitDiego,too.
JuanhitPedroPandDiegohithimPtoo.
andpronominalformtellusaboutthefocusstatusof
strongpronounsinSpanish?
object
explicit marking
(8)PARALLELassumesabackgroundedcommontopic.
JuanhitPedroandDiegohit him.[-F]àPedro
HIM[+F]àJuan
•  DeNinition:semanticrelationsbetweendiscoursesegments
Background:hit(x,Pedro)
(usually,propositions).
*
Result
•  Theyintroducematerialintothebackground(Kehler2005).
Pronounsreferringtobackgroundconstituentsaredefocalized.
weak
strong
***
**
•  Theyencouragecertainpronounresolutionstrategies:
***
***
subject
0.1
Background:DiscourseRelations
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.2
0
stressed
*
0.6
“MariahugsSara{and/but}Juan
hugsHER.”
American English
1
0.9
(8) MaríaabrazaaSara{y/pero}
Juanlaabrazaaella.
•  Explicitmarking:weakpronounsselectedparallelantecedents(all
p<0.05);strongpronounsselectednon-parallelantecedents(allp<0.001).
•  Nomarking:NopreferencesexceptforPAH:proàsubject(p<0.001).
Ø  Additionally,manyarguethatovertsubjectsand/or
strongobjectpronounsareinadifferentstructural
position(Rigau1988,Cardinaletti1997,Alonso-Ovalleetal.
2002),whetherFocusposition(Luján1986),Topicposition
(Mayol2010),ormultipleCPpositions(Frascarelli2007,
CamachoM.S.).
CONTRAST (6) MaríaabrazaaSara{y/
(strong)
pero}ellaabrazaaJuan.
•  Spanish:proelicitedmoresubjectresponsesoverall
Proportion subject responses
Researchershaveobserved:
•  differentantecedentpreferences(Carminati2002,
H1:PAHmaybeovercomeinspeciriccontexts,butproàmoresubjectsoverall H3:Ifstrongpronounsarenotnecessarily[+F],thentheyshouldbe
inadequatecuestothefocus/backgroundpartition.
H2:Ifpro=[-F];overt=[+F],thentheyshouldreactinoppositedirectionsto
vPrediction:Parallel(5,7)andanti-parallel(6-8)interpretations
changesinthefocus/backgroundpartition,(likeEnglish+/-stresspronouns).
evidentonlywhenaccompaniedbyexplicitdiscoursemarkerstambién
andpero.
Spanish
English
Subject
Object
OCCASION (1) JuanlepegaaPedroy (3) JoeyhitsPeterandthen
PARALLEL (5) MaríaabrazaaSaraypro (7) MaríaabrazaaSarayJuanla
después{pro/él}seva.
{he/HE}leaves.
(weak)
abrazaaJuan{ø/también}.
abraza{ø/también}.
“MariahugsSaraandprohugs
“MariahugsSaraandJuanhugs
RESULT (2) JuanlepegaaPedroy (4) JoeyhitsPeterandso
Juan{ø/too}.”
her{ø/too}.”
poreso{pro/él}seva.
{he/HE}leaves
Experiment2:ParallelandContrastrelations
NullandOvertsubjectsareinpartiallyoverlapping
distribution,raisingthequestion:Whataretheir
interpretationaldifferences?
subject
object
no marking
DiscourseMarking
Methods:Exp.1:40MexicoCitySpanishspeakersand54AmericanEnglish
speakersparticipatedinaforced-choicepictureselectiontaskwith16items(4x2
relationsx2pronominalforms),blockedwithin-subjects.Exp.2:ThesameMexican
subjectssaw16items(4x2subject/objectpronounx2strong/weakforms)blocked
within-subjects.Presence/absenceofdiscoursemarkingblockedbetweensubjects.
Conclusions:
•  ResultssupportthePAHasageneralprocessingstrategyactingalongsideDiscourse
Relations,whichalterthefocus/backgroundpartition.
•  Thecontrastbetweenstrong(overtsubject,clitic-doubledaccusative)andweak
(pro,clitic)pronounsisnot[-/+F]:Theydonotreactinoppositedirectionsto
changesinDiscourseRelation(Exp.1),andthusthestrong/weakcontrastisan
inadequatecuetoDiscourseRelations(Expt.2).Thisiscompatiblewithaccounts
assumingthatstrongpronounsareinTopicpositionormultipleCPpositions.
Acknowledgements:ManythankstothemembersoftheMSULanguageAcquisitionLab,especiallyCristina
Schmitt,AlanMunn,NiLaLe,KyleLatack,CatherineSeibert,andBethanyDickerson.ThankstoourMexicanparticipantsat
SEDI,MexicoCity,MX,andtoPatriciadelaFuenteandBetyLópezJuárezforrecruitmentandtesting.