Object fronting
Helen de Hoop
based on joint work with
Monique Lamers
Projects
Case Cross-linguistically & Animacy
Radboud University Nijmegen
www.ru.nl/pionier
Object fronting




Object fronting in Dutch
Dat weet ik zeker
that know I sure
Het lijk heeft Jan verstopt
the corpse has Jan hidden
Jan sloeg Piet
Jan hit Piet
Helen de Hoop
case
animacy
word order
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
2
Overview








Distinguishability
Incremental optimization of interpretation
Evidence from ERPs
Three types of verbs
Evidence from rating studies
Evidence from a production study
A bidirectional perspective
Conclusion
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
3
Distinguishability

Case can help to identify the first NP as
the object
Latin
puer-um magister laudat
boyACC
teacher praises
‘The teacher praises the boy.’
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
4
Distinguishability
ACCUSATIVE =
“part 2”
Prediction:
There is also a
“part 1”
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
5
Distinguishability
part 2

ACC

part 1
subject
Within
the
domain
of
language
comprehension, it is well established
that syntactic dependencies give rise to
predictive parsing (Gibson, 1998). For
example,
the
processing
of
an
unambiguously identifiable object will
give rise to the prediction of a subject.
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
6
Distinguishability
Den Zaun habe ich zerbrochen
[the fence]ACC have INOM broken
“The fence, I broke.”
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
7
Distinguishability
Den Zaun habe ich zerbrochen
Distinguishability of subject and object
Case
Agreement
Prominence (animacy)
Selection
* Precedence (word order)
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
8
Distinguishability
Die Studentin hat die Professorin geschlagen
“The student hit the professor.”
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
9
Distinguishability
Die Studentin hat die Professorin geschlagen
Distinguishability of subject and object
* Case
* Agreement
* Prominence (animacy)
* Selection
Precedence (word order)
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
10
Distinguishability
The holiday pleased the man
The man liked the holiday
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
11
Distinguishability
The holiday pleased the man
Distinguishability of subject and object
* Case
* Agreement
* Prominence (animacy)
Selection
 Precedence (word order)
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
12
Distinguishability
Case: the subject is in the nominative
case, the object in the accusative
Agreement: the subject agrees with
the verb
Prominence (animacy): the subject
outranks the object in animacy
Selection: Fit the selection restrictions
of the verb.
Precedence (word order): the subject
linearly precedes the object
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
13
Determining the ranking
Ich habe den Zaun CASE
zerbrochen “I
broke the fence”
AGREE
SELECT
PREC
PROM
 Subjectinitial
SI
Object-initial
OI
*
Helen de Hoop
*
*
Object Fronting
*
*
Barcelona 2007
14
Determining the ranking
Den Zaun habe ich CASE
zerbrochen “The
fence I broke”
Subject-initial
SI
AGREE
*
*
SELECT
PREC
*
PROM
*
*
 Object-initial
OI
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
15
Determining the ranking
CASE
AGREE
SELECT
PREC
PROM
Der Zaun hat mich
zerbrochen “The
fence broke me”
*
SI
OI
*
Helen de Hoop
*
*
*
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
16
Determining the ranking
Die Jacke hat
Bernhard gesehen
“The coat,
Bernhard saw”
CASE
AGREE
SELECT
PREC
*
SI
PROM
*
*
OI
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
17
Determining the ranking
Bernhard hat die
Vorstellung
deprimiert “The
play depressed
Bernhard”
CASE
AGREE
SELECT
PREC
PROM
*
SI
*
OI
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
*
Barcelona 2007
18
Determining the ranking
Die Pflanze streifte CASE
Bernhard
“The plant hit
Bernhard”
AGREE
SELECT
PREC
PROM
*
 SI
*
OI
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
19
The ranking of the constraints




Case, Agreement
Selection
Precedence
Prominence
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
20
Incremental optimization


During sentence processing the optimal
interpretation is being built up
incrementally (word-by-word or
constituent-by-constituent)
System of ranked constraints
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
21
Incremental optimization



Optimal interpretation at time t
Jumping from one interpretation to the
other
ERP studies
 Lamers 2001
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
22
Incremental optimization
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
23
Incremental optimization
De oude vrouw…
‘The old lady…’
SELECT
PREC
SI
OI
Helen de Hoop
*
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
24
Incremental optimization
De oude
vrouw…
‘The old
lady…’
verzorgde…
‘took care
of…’
SI
SI
OI
OI
Helen de Hoop
SELECT
PREC
*
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
25
Incremental optimization
Het oude park…
‘The old park…’
SELECT
PREC
SI
OI
Helen de Hoop
*
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
26
Incremental optimization
Het oude
park…
‘The old
park…’
verzorgde…
‘took care
of…’
PREC
SI *
SI
OI
SELECT
 OI
Helen de Hoop
*
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
27
Incremental optimization
De oude
vrouw…
‘The old
lady…’
verzorgde… hem… CASE PREC
‘took care
‘him..’
of…’
SI
SI
OI
OI
Helen de Hoop
SI
OI *
Object Fronting
*
Barcelona 2007
28
Incremental optimization
De oude
vrouw…
‘The old
lady…’
verzorgde… hij…
‘took care
‘he…’
of…’
SI
SI
OI
OI
Helen de Hoop
CASE PREC
SI *
 OI
Object Fronting
*
Barcelona 2007
29
Evidence from ERPs
De oude
vrouw…
verzorgde
…
Het oude
park…
verzorgde
CASE

SELECTION
PRECEDENCE
ERP




-
Helen de Hoop
*
Early, late
positivities
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
30
Evidence from ERPs
De oude
vrouw
verzorgde…
hem…
De oude
hij
vrouw
verzorgde…

CASE

SELECTION




PRECEDENCE



*
ERP
-
Helen de Hoop
Early, late
positivities
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
31
Evidence from ERPs
Het oude
park…
verzorgde
De oude
hij
vrouw
verzorgde…

CASE
SELECTION
PRECEDENCE
ERP




*

*
Early, late
positivities
Helen de Hoop
Early, late
positivities
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
32
case
animacy
De oude vrouw/Het oude park … verzorgde hij…
De oude vrouw in de straat verzorgde hem/hij…
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
33
Evidence from ERPs
1.
2.
3.
-
De oude vrouw verzorgde hem…
Het oude park verzorgde hij…
De oude vrouw verzorgde hij…
(2) gets an OI reading at the verb (SELECTION)
(3) gets an OI reading at the pronoun (CASE)
Lamers (2001) reports similar ERP effects at the
verb in (2) and at the pronoun in (3)
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
34
Evidence from ERPs
1.
2.
3.
-
-
De oude vrouw verzorgde hem…
Het oude park verzorgde hij…
De oude vrouw verzorgde hij…
Lamers (2001) reports similar ERP effects at the
verb in (2) and at the pronoun in (3)
At the verb in (2) and at the pronoun in (3)
there is a “jump” from an SI to an OI reading
(thereby violating PRECEDENCE)
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
35
Evidence from ERPs
Identical ERP effects correspond to
identical patterns of constraint
violations
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
36
Three types of verbs



agentive & experiencer-theme verbs
Call (xAgent, yTheme)
The secretary called the customer
causative psych/theme-experiencer verbs
Frighten (xTheme/Stim, yExp)
The secretary frightened us.
unaccusative psych verbs
Please (xTheme, yExp)
The secretary pleased us.
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
37
Three types of verbs

agentive & experiencer-theme verbs
Dat de toerist de stad zeer bewonderde… <SI>
that the tourist the city a-lot admired…
*Dat de stad de toerist zeer bewonderde… <OI>
that the city the tourist a-lot admired…
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
38
Three types of verbs

causative psych verbs
Dat de stad de toerist zeer deprimeerde… <SI>
that the city the tourist a-lot depressed…
Dat de toerist de stad zeer deprimeerde… <OI>
that the tourist the city a-lot depressed…
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
39
Three types of verbs

unaccusative psych verbs
Dat de stad de toerist zeer beviel… <SI>
that the city the tourist a-lot pleased…
Dat de toerist de stad zeer beviel… <OI>
that the tourist the city a-lot pleased…
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
40
Evidence from rating studies
Verb type
Mean rating of SO Mean rating of OS
Agentive
6.9 (.11) 6.8 (0.7) 1.4 (.26) 1.8 (1.2)
Causative
psych
6.3 (.49) 6.1 (1.3) 3.1 (.86) 3.2 (1.4)
Unaccusative
6.0 (.79) 5.9 (1.7) 4.8 (1.0) 4.6 (2.3)
psych
Black: Lamers (2001)
Helen de Hoop
Orange: Lamers (2005)
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
41
Evidence from rating studies



General preference for subject-initial
sentences
Strongest SI preference for agentive
verbs
Highest rating of OI sentences for
unaccusative psych verbs
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
42
Evidence from rating studies

Where do these differences between
the three types of verbs come from?
Strongest SI preference for agentive verbs


Subject first
Animate first
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
43
Evidence from rating studies

Psych verbs have an animate object
Therefore, only one of the two constraints
can be satisfied


Subject first  SI
Animate first  OI
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
44
Three types of verbs
But then, what is the difference between
unaccusative and psych verbs?
Highest rating of OI sentences for
unaccusative psych verbs
Production experiment (Hofmans &
Lamers 2006)
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
45
A production study



30 normal participants (6 Broca aphasics)
12 sets of three verbs with an animate &
inanimate NPs (2 combinations for each
set of verbs)
three conditions for each verb:
-no first NP given
-animate first
-inanimate first
depress
Helen de Hoop
student
Object Fronting
exam
Barcelona 2007
46
SUBJECT FIRST
ANIMATE FIRST
condition SI active Passive
OI active other
agentive
79
16
0
6
causative
60
27
2
11
unacc
61
24
14
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
47
A production study



Subject First
Animate First
Conflict between these two results in a
higher occurrence of passive
constructions with causative psych
verbs satisfying both constraints, and a
higher occurrence of OI constructions
satisfying Animate First with
unaccusative psych verbs.
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
48
A bidirectional perspective
But then, what is the difference between
unaccusative and psych verbs?
Difference in rating can be explained in a
bidirectional approach in which the
hearer takes the speaker’s
perspective into account.
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
49
A bidirectional perspective
When a speaker wants to start with the
animate argument, she can use a
passive construction in case of a
causative psych verb (thereby
satisfying Subject First as well), but
not in case of an unaccusative psych
verb. Thus, for unaccusative psych
verbs, only an OI sentence leads to
satisfaction of Animate First.
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
50
Conclusions





Subject First is more important than Animate First.
If a speaker wants to satisfy Subject First as well as
Animate First, then a conflict may arise in the case of
psych verbs (that have animate objects).
To solve the conflict, a passive construction may be used
(which implies satisfaction of both constraints).
But if passive formation is not possible (unaccusative
psych verbs), then object fronting is the only way to
satisfy Animate First.
This explains the increase of both the rating and the
production of object-initial sentences in the case of
unaccusative psych verbs.
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
51
Case cross-linguistically & Animacy
www.ru.nl/pionier/
Helen de Hoop
Object Fronting
Barcelona 2007
52