Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:52:32.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Experimental Syntax and Slavic Languages

from Part III - Experimental Studies of Specific Populations and Language Families

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

By
Arthur Stepanov
Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

The chapter reviews a number of empirical domains that recently came into the focus of research in Slavic experimental syntax, including island phenomena, syntactic Superiority effects, various types of agreement, word order, and scope interaction, among others. This research mostly relies on sentence acceptability experiments applied across larger pools of participants, but the chapter also reviews selected studies using related experimental methods (e.g. elicited production and sentence–picture verification). The chapter concludes by identifying a number of conceptual issues in syntactic theory, for which we believe Slavic experimental syntax has a potential to make a particularly strong contribution.

Keywords

experimental syntaxSlavic languagesyntactic islandunaccusativityinformation structureSuperiority effectCase matchingagreementnumeral phrase
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 534 - 560
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, C. (2004). The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Antonyuk, S. (2015). Quantifier scope and scope freezing in Russian. Doctoral dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Antonyuk-Yudina, S. & Mykhaylyk, R. (2013). Prosody of scrambling. In Kan, S., Moore-Cantwell, C., & Staubs, R., eds., Proceedings of NELS 40. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, pp. 31–44.Google Scholar
Babby, L. (1987). Case, prequantifiers, and discontinous agreement in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 91–138.Google Scholar
Bader, M. & Bayer, J. (2006). Case and Linking in Language Comprehension: Evidence from German. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailyn, J. F. (1995). A configurational approach to Russian “free” word order. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72, 32–68.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Bhatia, A., & Polinsky, M. (2010). Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 9, 67–88.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. & Walkow, M. (2013). Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31, 951–1013.Google Scholar
Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Bogucka, J. (2012). Single conjunct agreement with coordinated subjects in Polish. Talk given at Young Linguists’ Meeting in Poznan.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2002). On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 351–383.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2009). Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 27, 455–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büring, D. (2008). What’s new (and what’s given) in the theory of focus? In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 403–424.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1964). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., & Zubizarreta, M.-L., eds., Foundational Issues in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 133–166.Google Scholar
Dočekal, M. & Dotlačil, J. (2016). Experimental evidence for Neg-raising in Slavic. Linguistica, 56(1), 93–109.Google Scholar
Dvořák, V. (2010). On the syntax of ditransitive verbs in Czech. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 161–177.Google Scholar
Dyakonova, M. (2007). Russian double object constructions. ACLC Working Papers, 2, 3–30. Available at http://home.hum.uva.nl/oz/hengeveldp/publications/2007_hengeveld.pdf#page=3Google Scholar
Fanselow, G., Schlesewsky, M., Vogel, R., & Weskott, T. (2011). Animacy effects on crossing wh-movement in German. Linguistics, 49(4), 657–683.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005). That-trace in German. Lingua, 115(9), 1277–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1974) The Psychology of Language. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Franks, S. (1995). Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Golden, M. (1995). Interrogative wh-movement in Slovene and English. Acta Analytica, 14, 145–187.Google Scholar
Golden, M. (1996). K-premik in skladenjski otoki v slovenski skladnji. Razprave SAZU, Razred II, vol. 15. Ljubljana: SAZU, pp. 237–253.Google Scholar
Golden, M. (1997). O jeziku in jezikoslovju. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.Google Scholar
Hajičová, E. (1993). Issues of Sentence Structure and Discourse Patterns. Prague: Charles University Press.Google Scholar
Hajičová, E., Partee, B. H., & Sgall, P. (1998). Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantic Content. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hladnik, M. (2015). Mind the gap: resumption in Slavic relative clauses. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. (2003). The one girl who was kissed by every boy: Scope, scrambling and discourse function in Russian. In M. van Koppen et al., eds., Proceedings of ConSole X. Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Luchkina, T. (2015). One reading for every word order: Revisiting Russian scope. In Steindl, U. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Luchkina, T. (2018). Focus on Russian scope: An experimental investigation of the relationship between quantifier scope, prosody, and information structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 49 (4), 741–779.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Matushansky, O. (2006). The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics, 23, 315–360.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Matushansky, O. (2013). More than one comparative in more than one Slavic language: An experimental investigation. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 21: The Third Indiana Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 91–107.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Matushansky, O. (2018). Cardinals: The syntax and semantics of cardinal-containing expressions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 24(1) (2016).Google Scholar
Kallestinova, E. (2007). Aspects of word order in Russian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Kallestinova, E. & Slabakova, R. (2008). Does the verb move in Russian? In Antonenko, A., Bailyn, J., & Bethin, C., eds., Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 16: The Stony Brook Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 199–214.Google Scholar
King, T. (1995). Configuring Topic and Focus in Russian. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kiss, K., ed. (1995). Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Łęska, P. (2016). Agreement under Case Matching in Polish co and który relative clauses headed by numerically quantified nouns. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 24(1), 113–136.Google Scholar
Luchkina, T. & Ionin, T. (2015). The effect of prosody on availability of inverse scope in Russian. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 23: The Berkeley Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 418–437.Google Scholar
Marušič, F., Nevins, A., & Saksida, A. (2007). Last-conjunct agreement in Slovenian. In Compton, R., Goledzinowska, M., & Savchenko, U., eds., Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15: The Toronto Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 210–227.Google Scholar
Marušič, F., Nevins, A., & Badecker, W. (2015). The Grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax, 18(1), 39–77.Google Scholar
Marvin, T. & Stegovec, A. (2012). On the syntax of ditransitive sentences in Slovenian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 59 (1–2), 177–203.Google Scholar
Mathesius, V. (1947). Čeština a obecný jazykozpyt (‘Czech language and general linguistics’). Prague: Melantrich.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. (2005). Resumption. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 4. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 94–117.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. (2004). Superiority effects in Russian, Polish and Czech: Judgments and grammar. Cahiers linguistiques d’Ottawa, 32, 44–65.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. & Mleinek, I. (2006). How prosody signals force and focus a study of pitch accents in Russian yes-no questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (10), 1615–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mišmaš, P. (2015). On the optionality of wh-fronting in a multiple wh-fronting language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nova Gorica.Google Scholar
Mitić, I. & Arsenijević, B. (2019). Plural conjuncts and syncretism facilitate gender agreement in Serbo-Croatian: Experimental evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 942. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00942Google Scholar
Murphy, A., Puškar, Z., & Naranjo, M. G. (2018). Gender encoding on hybrid nouns in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian: Experimental evidence from ellipsis. In Lenertová, D., Meyer, R., Šimík, R., & Szucsich, L., eds., Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2016. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 313–336.Google Scholar
Mykhaylyk, R., Rodina, Y., & Anderssen, M. (2013). Ditransitive constructions in Russian and Ukrainian: Effect of givenness on word order. Lingua, 137, 271–289.Google Scholar
Nevins, A. (2007). The representation of third person and its consequences for person–case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 273–313.Google Scholar
Oliver, D. & Andreeva, B. (2004). Peak alignment in broad and narrow focus in Polish and Bulgarian: A cross-language study. In Zybatow, G., Szucsich, L., Junghanns, U., & Meyer, R., eds., Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages V. Berlin: Peter Lang, pp. 26–29.Google Scholar
Pancheva, R. (2006). Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Slavic. In Lavine, J., Franks, S., Tasseva-Kurktchieva, M., & Filip, H., eds., Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 14: The Princeton Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 236–257.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B., eds., The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 98–129.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (2013). Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82(4), 795–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M., Gallo, C. G., Graff, P., Kravtchenko, E., Morgan, A. M., & Sturgeon, A. (2013). Subject islands are different. In Sprouse, J., ed., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 286–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L., ed., Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2007). On some properties of criterial freezing. In Moscati, V., ed., CISCL Working Papers on Language and Cognition, 1: StiL Studies in Linguistics. University of Siena, pp. 145–158.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. (1988). On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 445–501.Google Scholar
Runić, J. (2013). The Person–Case Constraint: A morphological consensus. Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts 2013, 37, 1–5. Available at: https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/ExtendedAbs/issue/view/23Google Scholar
Schwarzchild, R. (1999). GIVENness, AvoidF, and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7(2), 141–177.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. (1997). The syntax and processing of scrambling constructions in Russian. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. (2017). Slavic psycholinguistics in the 21st century. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 25(2), 465–489.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (1992). Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 443–468.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. & Wierzba, M. (2015). The role of givenness, presupposition, and prosody in Czech word order: An experimental study. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8(3), 1–103. DOI: 10.3765/sp.8.3Google Scholar
Šimík, R. & Wierzba, M. (2017). Expression of information structure in West Slavic: Modeling the impact of prosodic and word-order factors. Language, 93(3), 671–709.Google Scholar
Šimík, R., Wierzba, M., & Kamali, B. (2014). Givenness and the position of the direct object in the Czech clause. In Chapman, C., Kit, O., & Kučerová, I., eds., Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 22: The McMaster Meeting 2013. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 302–318.Google Scholar
Smiljanić, R. (2006). Early vs. late focus: Pitch-peak alignment in two dialects of Serbian and Croatian. In Goldstein, L., Whalen, D. H., & Best, C. T., eds., Laboratory Phonology 8. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 495–518.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Caponigro, I., Greco, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2016). Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 307–344.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88(1), 82–123.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. (2007). The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax, 10, 80–126.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A., Mušič, M., & Stateva, P. (2016). Asymmetries in sub-extraction out of NP in Slovenian: A magnitude estimation study. Linguistica, 56 (1), 253–271.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A., Mušič, M., & Stateva, P. (2018). Two (non-)islands in Slovenian: A study in experimental syntax. Linguistics, 56(3), 435–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepanov, A. & Stateva, P. (2018). Countability, agreement and the loss of the dual in Russian. Journal of Linguistics, 54(4), 779–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoops, A. & Ionin, T. (2013). Quantifier scope and scrambling in Russian: An experimental study. In Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Bloomington Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 344–358.Google Scholar
Stopar, A. (2017). The prosody of focus: Non-contrastive, contrastive and verum focus in Slovenian, English and Russian. Linguistica, 57(1), 293–312.Google Scholar
Sturgeon, A., Harizanov, B., Polinsky, M., Kravtchenko, E., Gallo, C. G., Medová, L., & Koula, V. (2012). Revisiting the Person Case Constraint in Czech. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 19. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 116–130.Google Scholar
Sturgeon, A., Polinsky, M., Kravtchenko, G., Gallo, C. E., Medová, L., & Koula, V. (2010). Subject islands in Slavic: The syntactic position matters! Paper presented at Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 19, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Takahashi, D. (1994). Minimality of movement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1988). On government. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Vaiksnoraite, E. (2019). Russian is the new Czech? An experimental investigation of Genitive of Negation in Russian. Poster at Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 28, May 3–5, 2019, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Vakareliyska, C. M. (1996). Subject/topic slots in Bulgarian: Evidence from aphasia. In Toman, J., ed., Papers from the Third Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 273–290.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E. & Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics 34(3), 459–519.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. (2012). Focus and givenness: A unified approach. In Kučerová, I. & Neeleman, A., eds., Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 102–148.Google Scholar
Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijević, B., Batinić, M., Čordalija, N., Kresić, M., Leko, N., Marušič, F. L., Milićev, T., Milićević, N., Mitić, I., Nevins, A., Peti-Stantić, A., Stanković, B., Šuligoj, T., & Tušek, J. (2016). Conjunct agreement and gender in South Slavic: From theory to experiments to theory. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 24(1), 187–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijević, B., Batinić, M., Becker, M., Čordalija, N., Kresić, M., Leko, N., Marušič, F. L., Milićev, T., Milićević, N., Mitić, I., Peti-Stantić, A., Stanković, B., Šuligoj, T., Tušek, J., & Nevins, A. (2018). When linearity prevails over hierarchy in syntax. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(3), 495–500.Google Scholar
Zybatow, G. & Mehlhorn, G. (2000). Experimental evidence for focus structure in Russian. In King, T. H. & Sekerina, I. A., eds., Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 8. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 414–434.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×