Wiley InterScience : Language and Linguistics Compasshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2F1749818XJohn Wiley & Sons, Incen© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd2009-11-201749-818X1749-818Xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1749-818X.2009.00171.xDiane Massam2009-11-20T06:21:00Z10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00171.x© 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.This guide accompanies the following article: 'Noun Incorporation: Essentials and Extensions'Language and Linguistics Compass 3 (2009): 1076[ndash]1096 DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2009.00171.x Noun incorporation (NI) refers to a family of grammatical constructions that stand at the center of grammar, integrating morpho-phonology and semantics, and crossing the lexical-syntactic divide. It is thus an ideal topic of study, allowing extensions in all directions. In general, a NI structure is one in which a nominal that would canonically (either in the given language, or in languages in general) be expressed as an independent argument or adjunct is instead in some way incorporated into the verbal element of the sentence, forming part of the predicate. The construction raises many issues in empirical and theoretical grammar. At the heart of many of these issues is the question whether NI is a word formation rule or whether it interacts with syntax, manipulating sentential predicates. The study of NI thus raises questions as to whether there is a distinct word-formation component. Empirically, languages exhibit myriad forms of NI, both morpho-syntactically and semantically. In early work, morphology and syntax were the main areas of attention, in particular the role of polysynthesis and compounding in NI, but in recent years, the meanings of both the parts and the whole of incorporation complexes have taken center stage. In some languages, the predicate must denote a customary activity and the object is modificational, whereas in others, the process is fully productive and the incorporated nominal can be referential. Of further interest, there is a close relation between NI and other grammatical phenomena such as possessive, classificatory, complex predicate, and existential constructions, and through its study questions of nominal semantics, transitivity, discourse focus, and sentential aspect arise. The literature on NI is particularly discoursal, from its origins to the present day, which allows as well for close study of styles of linguistic analysis and argumentation. NI can thus be used as a springboard for discussion of many issues in current and historical linguistic theory. Sapir, Edward. 1911. The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. American Anthropologist 13.250[ndash]82. A famous early paper on the topic, addressing the issue of whether NI is a word-forming or predicate forming construction, thus laying the groundwork for a century of work on the topic. Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60.847[ndash]95. Perhaps the most important paper on the topic, as it presents a thorough overview of all the types of NI across a wide range of languages, suggesting an implicational hierarchy between the different types. The paper takes a lexicalist approach to NI. Sadock, Jerrold M. 1986. Some notes on noun incorporation. Language 62.19[ndash]31. A heated reply to Mithun (1984), taking issue with the view of NI as lexical, which he argues is based on the wrong approach of setting aside some types of NI. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing (in particular, Chapter 3). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. A highly influential work on the topic within Government and Binding theory, presenting a structural blueprint for dealing with a wide range of NI phenomena. Rosen, Sarah Thomas. 1989. Two types of noun incorporation: a lexical analysis. Language 65:2.294[ndash]317. An alternative to Baker (1988), which argues that NI should be treated as lexical process, rather than a syntactic one, and which presents an analysis along these lines. Baker, Mark C. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter (in particular, Chapter 7). New York: Oxford University Press. A discussion of NI as found in polysynthetic languages, arguing that true NI is limited to such languages by a macro-parameter. Gerdts, Donna B. 1998. Incorporation. In A. Spencer and A. Zwicky (eds). The handbook of morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 84[ndash]100. A useful overview of the NI literature up until 2001, with emphasis on the empirical range of phenomena. Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19.153[ndash]97. An examination Niuean phrasal incorporation, opening the door to more abstract (or pseudo-) incorporation. Van Geenhoven, Veerle. 2001. Noun incorporation. State of the article. Glot International Vol. 5:8.261[ndash]71. An overview of noun incorporation literature, with emphasis on semantic issues raised by the construction. Farkas, Donka, and Henriëtte de Swart. 2003. The semantics of incorporation: from argument structure to discourse transparency. Centre for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. An in-depth analysis of semantics and pragmatic aspects of incorporation. The introduction gives a good overview of the issues addressed in the book. Gerdts, Donna B. 2003. The morphosyntax of Halkomelem lexical suffixes. International Journal of American Linguistics 69.4.345[ndash]56. An examination of one type of obligatory incorporation in which the nominal cannot stand alone. Chung, Sandra, and William Ladusaw. 2004. Restriction and saturation. MIT Press. A study in the semantics of noun incorporation, arguing for a new type of predicate-argument relation, termed Restrict. (In particular, Chapter 3) Dayal, Veneeta. 2007. Hindi pseudo incorporation. Ms. Rutgers University.http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Edayal/Pincorp-07.pdf A study of the semantics of Hindi noun incorporation, with a focus on the role of number and aspect. Johns, Alana. 2007. Restricting noun incorporation: root movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25.535[ndash]76. A new analysis of one type of obligatory incorporation, found in Inuktitut, in which the verbal element cannot stand alone. Mathieu. Eric. 2009. Introduction to a special volume on noun incorporation and its kind. Lingua 119.141[ndash]7 (and papers therein). This volume contains current papers on many aspects of NI, as well as an introduction to the key issues relevant today. Noun Incorporation could be the key focus of a seminar course, or it could be used as a springboard to explore a variety of other topics. The following suggested curriculum focuses on noun incorporation, but also brings in some other topics, mainly through student projects, involving a presentation and a paper. As well as covering the topics related to the construction, the course can also serve as an introduction to analysis and argumentation, since several of the papers, from 1909 onwards, are overtly arguing against other authors listed for the course. The instructor can thus use the papers to dissect the techniques of linguistic argumentation. An option for weeks 3, 7, and 9 would be, instead of having all students read the key articles for the week, to allow them to read one from the set of related readings, which they can bring to the discussion. In this case, the instructor would present the key readings, and invite discussion of the main theme from the point of view of the readings the students have chosen. 1 Central perspectives Week 1 This session introduces the range of types of NI, examining a broad set of data, as laid out in Mithun (1984). The instructor can foreshadow the coming topics of debate through close study of the data presented. The related reading, Gerdts (2001) provides an overview of the literature on NI up to 2001. Key Reading: Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60.847[ndash]95. Related Readings: Gerdts, Donna B. 1998. Incorporation. In A. Spencer and A. Zwicky (eds). The handbook of morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 84[ndash]100. Week 2 This session focuses on the leading structural analysis of noun incorporation, that of Baker (1988). The goal is to understand the motivation for the analysis, and its details, so as to be able to evaluate its effectiveness in accounting for the data, with reference to the material of Week 1. The instructor can foreshadow later views that head movement should not be part of the grammar, and raise the issues discussed in the related reading, Baker (2009), as to whether head movement is truly necessary to account for NI. Key Reading: Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing (Chapter 3). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Related Readings: Baker, Mark C. 2009. Is head movement still needed for noun incorporation? Lingua 119:148[ndash]65. Week 3 So far, a morphological and a syntactic analysis have been examined. This week, the focus is on reactions to these papers. The first paper, Rosen 1989, reacts against Baker's syntactic approach and proposes a lexical approach instead. The second, Sadock (1986) reacts against Mithun's lexical approach and argues for a syntactic approach instead. Related readings also argue for a lexical (Anderson 2001) or syntactic (Haugen 2007) approach, while Johns (2007) presents a syntactic view of Inuit incorporation which differs from Sadock's (1986) view. The instructor can frame the discussion around both the issues and the styles of argumentation. Key Readings: Rosen, Sarah Thomas. 1989. Two types of noun incorporation: a lexical analysis. Language 65:2.294[ndash]317. Sadock, Jerrold M. 1986. Some notes on noun incorporation. Language 62.19[ndash]31. Related Readings: Anderson, Stephen R. 2001. Lexicalism incorporation (or Incorporation lexicalized) Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: University of Chicago. Haugen, Jason D. 2008. Morphology at the interfaces [ndash] reduplication and noun incorporation in Uto-Aztecan (Part III). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Johns, Alana. 2007. Restricting noun incorporation: root movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25.535[ndash]76. Week 4 Now that the students are informed about relatively current approaches to noun incorporation, it is interesting to go back to the very early papers on this topic and see how the same issues were debated in the early part of the 20th century. A meta-topic here is the history of linguistic thinking. Key Readings: Kroeber, Alfred L. 1910. Noun incorporation in American languages. In F. Heger (Ed.), XVI Internationaler Amerikanisten-Kongress (pp. 569[ndash]576). Vienna: Hartleben. Sapir, Edward. 1911. The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. American Anthropologist 13.250[ndash]82. Related Readings: Kroeber, Alfred L. 1911. Incorporation as a linguistic process. American Anthropologist 13.577[ndash]84. Weeks 5 and 6 These two weeks are devoted to student presentations. Each student will present a paper they have read, with critique and commentary, on an empirically or theoretically different aspect of noun incorporation. Examples include incorporation of subjects and adjuncts, possessive incorporation, obligatory NI, incorporation of other categories (PPs, Vs, etc.), or Lexical Functional Grammar approaches to NI. Depending on the session length and the number of students, the presentations might range from brief overviews of ten minutes each to longer presentations up to half an hour each. The next two weeks will explore two fairly recent views of noun incorporation that study the phenomenon in two very diverse types of language. Baker (1996) argues that true noun incorporation occurs only in polysynthetic languages, where the incorporated noun is referential. Massam (2001) examines noun incorporation in an isolating language, in which the incorporated noun generally is non-referential and modificational. A question arising is whether the two types of noun incorporation are completely separate, or related in some way, and if the latter, exactly how they can be related so as to capture both similarities and differences. Week 7 This week's reading looks at a polysynthetic language, in which the incorporated noun is referential. In related papers, Jelinek (1984) lays relevant groundwork for the understanding of polysynthetic languages, while Gerdts and Marlett (2008) look at obligatory incorporation of reduced nominals. Key Reading: Baker, Mark C. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter (Chapter 7). New York: Oxford University Press. Related Readings: Jelinek, Eloise: 1984. Empty categories, case and non-configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2.39[ndash]76. Gerdts, Donna B. and Stephen A. Marlett. 2008. Introduction: the form and function of denominal verb constructions. International Journal of American Linguistics 74:4.409[ndash]22. Week 8 This week's reading looks at an isolating language, in which the incorporated noun is non-nonreferential. In a related paper, Massam (2009) examines a different type of NI in the same language, in which the incorporated nominal is referential. Key Reading: Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19.153[ndash]97. Related Reading: Massam, Diane. 2009. Existential incorporation constructions. Lingua 119.166[ndash]84. The next two weeks focus on recent literature on the semantics of NI, which is often non-referential, modificational, and in some cases classificatory. Core debates are how to formalize the existential force of the nominal, whether narrow scope indefinites are incorporated, and whether incorporated nouns are number neutral. The role of pragmatics is also examined. Week 9 This week explores the concept of semantic incorporation, which posits that incorporated nominals are not arguments, and that narrow scope indefinites are semantically incorporated, by reading the early work on this topic by Van Geenhoven (1988a). The related readings (Van Geenhoven 1998b, Chung and Ladusaw 2004, Farkas and de Swart 2003) discuss this and related issues further, while Van Geenhoven (2001) provides an overview of the semantics of NI. Key Reading: Van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998a. On the argument structure of some noun incorporating verbs in West Greenlandic. In Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds). The projection of arguments: lexical and compositional factors. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 225[ndash]63. Related Readings: Chung, Sandra, and William Ladusaw. 2004. Restriction and saturation. MIT Press. Farkas, Donka, and Henriëtte de Swart. 2003. The semantics of incorporation: from argument structure to discourse transparency. Centre for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. Van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998b. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI Publications. (Introduction) Van Geenhoven, Veerle. 2001. Noun incorporation: State of the article. Glot International Vol. 5:8.261[ndash]71. Week 10 This week explores issues related to number and aspect in the semantics of NI. A related older paper (Hopper and Thompson, 1980) looks at the broader issue of degrees of transitivity. Key Reading: Dayal, Veneeta, 2007. Hindi pseudo incorporation. Ms. Rutgers University. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Edayal/Pincorp-07.pdf Related Reading: Hopper, Paul and Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.251[ndash]99. Weeks 11 and 12 Students will present original research orally, based on their final papers. The paper can focus on NI or, particularly if a student wants to work on a language that does not exhibit NI, other topics can be explored, such as bare/reduced NPs, transitivity, modification, serial verbs, polysynthesis, locatives, existentials, possessors, or classification. Is noun incorporation a distinct grammatical phenomenon, or should it be folded into other constructions, such as compounding or polysynthesis? Is the mental grammar divided into a Lexical and a Syntactic component? What makes the difference between a language in which incorporated nouns are referential vs a language in which they are modificational? What is the relation between NI and other types of incorporation of material into verbs, such as clitics, secondary predicates, modifiers, prepositions, etc.? Is incorporation properly restricted to complements, and if so, how do we treat the apparent exceptions? If not, why are there overwhelmingly more cases of complement incorporation? What are the limits of what we want to call noun incorporation? Are narrow scope indefinites incorporated? What is at the heart of the connection between noun incorporation and possessors, classification, existential, complex predicate and locative constructions? To what extent are constructions a legitimate object of study in theoretical syntax? Should they be defined semantically or morpho-syntactically?http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1749-818X.2009.00176.xPhilomen Probert2009-11-04T09:23:00Z10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00176.x© 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.Ancient Greek had a complex accentuation system in which phonological factors interacted with the morphology and lexicon. This system has become important in the debate over whether a phonological theory should operate with derivations or constraints, or a combination of the two. This study surveys recent analyses of the Ancient Greek accentuation system in Generative Phonology and Optimality Theory, and challenges these analyses with some additional data.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1749-818X.2009.00177.xCharles Clifton Jr, Adrian Staub2009-10-20T09:31:00Z10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00177.x© 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.Two metaphors have dominated cognitive psychology throughout its history: 'activation' and 'computation'. Activation (itself metaphorically based on neural firing rate) assumes that representations (mental symbols or patterns of non-symbolic 'nodes') exist at varying degrees of activation, and high activation of a representation amounts to something like perception or recall. Computation assumes that representations are instead constructed from more elementary components, and that a representation does not exist prior to its construction. We examine the differential implications of these metaphors in the domain of sentence comprehension. Most theories that claim the representation of a sentence is something that is activated by input which proposes that multiple representations are at least temporarily activated, and in order for one representation to be selected, it must de-activate the others in a time-consuming process of competition. Theories that claim that the representation of a sentence is constructed, in contrast, have to posit rules for how the input guides construction, but by and large, these theories do not claim that alternative possible representations compete with each other. We review evidence indicating that time-consuming competition does exist in the process of recognizing individual words, but propose that nearly all existing evidence denies competition in the case of sentence comprehension. Clifton, C., Jr., A. Staub, and K. Rayner. 2007. Eye movements in reading words and sentences. Eye movement research: insights into mind and brain, ed. by. R. van Gompel, M. Fisher, W. Murray and R. L. Hill, 341[ndash]71. New York: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50017-3 This chapter contains an extensive review of experiments on eye movements made while reading sentences, examining a number of questions in addition to the one addressed here, namely, whether the eyes slow down while reading a syntactically ambiguous phrase. Duffy, S., G. Kambe, and K. Rayner. 2001. The effect of prior disambiguating context on the comprehension of ambiguous words: evidence from eye movements. On the consequences of meaning selection: perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity, ed. by D. S. Gorfein, 27[ndash]43. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10459-002 An accessible review of eyetracking research supporting the existence of competition between alternative meanings of ambiguous words. Elman, J. L., M. Hare, and K. McRae. 2004. Cues, constraints, and competition in sentence processing. Beyond nature-nurture: essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates, ed. by M. Tomasello and D. Slobin, 111[ndash]138. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. This chapter presents an implemented constraint-based model of sentence comprehension, making a clear prediction that time-consuming competition exists during the reading and the resolution of a syntactic ambiguity, and presenting data that indicate that reading is slowed only during the resolution. Frazier, L. 1987. Sentence processing: a tutorial review. Attention and performance XII, ed. by M. Coltheart, 559[ndash]86. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. This is probably the most-cited presentation of the 'garden-path' model discussed in the paper. It predates the full development of constraint-based competition models. Frazier, L. (1995). Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24.437[ndash]68. doi:10.1007/BF02143161 This article presents a variety of criticisms of constraint-based models of sentence processing in addition to the current claim that competition in the region of a syntactic ambiguity is not observed. Green, M. J., and D. C. Mitchell. 2006. Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 55.1[ndash]17. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.003 Green and Mitchell present an interesting claim that local ambiguity does not necessarily result in competition. The claim seems to be correct, but we argue that it does not plausibly apply to most instances of sentence comprehension. MacDonald, M. C., N. J. Pearlmutter, and M. S. Seidenberg. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101.676[ndash]703. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676 This is an important article, advocating the claim that sentence comprehension is much the same as word recognition, and that both are characterized by competition between multiple possible representations. van Gompel, R. P. G., M. J. Pickering, and M. J. Traxler, M. 2001. Reanalysis in sentence processing: evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language 45.225[ndash]258. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2773 One of a series of studies indicating that syntactic ambiguity can speed reading rather than slowing it. 1. Assuming the authors' perspective that there is parallel activation of, and competition between, multiple meanings of a word, but not between multiple syntactic analyses, why might this be the case? Are there considerations of efficiency or resource constraints that would give rise to this difference? 2. In what other areas of cognition is there evidence of competition for selection between activated representations, or between response options? 3. The authors suggest that the argument by Green and Mitchell (2006) is implausible because it assumes pre-activation of all possible sentence continuations. Do you agree that this is implausible? Why or why not? 4. In discussing Levy's (2008) proposals, the authors raise the issue of whether processing behavior at the point of syntactic disambiguation is bimodal or unimodal. Why is this important? How could you tell if there is bimodality? 5. Can you think of predictions made by an account of syntactic processing that assumes parallel activation of multiple alternatives, other than the ones discussed in the article? 6. One possibility that is alluded to briefly in the article is that the reading time advantage obtained by van Gompel and colleagues for globally ambiguous sentences may be because of a failure to fully resolve the ambiguity. Do you know of any specific evidence suggestive of this? Can you think of critical experiments that might address this issue? Early Models: Heuristics, Delay The Garden Path (GP) Model Focuses on ambiguity resolution Proposes structural simplicity as primary principle Assumes a separate reanalysis stage when first-pass parsing fails Constraint-Based Models Simultaneous (optimal) use of many information types Parallel activation of multiple analyses Reanalysis as re-weighting or re-ranking The State of the Art Problems for the GP model Evidence for rapid use of non-syntactic information Cases in which parsing preferences do not conform to simplicity metrics Problems for constraint-based models Failure to show reversals of GP-predicted preferences Failure to show evidence of competition during ambiguity (PRESENT REVIEW GOES HERE) Emergence of new perspectives Frequency-based accounts Importance of structural prediction.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1749-818X.2009.00175.xJanneke Huitink2009-10-20T09:31:00Z10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00175.x© 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.The interpretation of conditionals in the scope of a quantifier (as in 'No student will succeed if he goofs off') presents a troubling puzzle. Either we are forced to abandon the thesis that natural language obeys the compositionality principle, or we must commit to a semantics for conditionals that involves an uncomfortably high degree of stipulation. This article surveys the recent literature on quantified conditionals and aims to pinpoint the issues that stand in the way of a compositional analysis.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1749-818X.2009.00168.xWu Bing-zhang2009-10-20T09:31:00Z10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00168.x© 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.An utterance hardly provides adequate information for its understanding, but the stereotypical relations (SRs) suggested by its linguistic components and mode of expression help to complement the explicitly expressed content, thus making the utterance serve its communicative function. Stereotypical relations are a speaker/hearer's perception and memory of the relations between things in the experiential world. Such relations, once entrenched, are the cognitive device by which humans understand, represent, and express the world. Things in SRs are interdependent; the presence of one entails that of another. Therefore, an utterance implicates the necessary information by SRs to 'fill up' the information gap in the context of communication. Stereotypical relations can be characterized in terms of similarity and proximity, both of which are categories of degree.