A reconsideration of the motivations for preferred argument structure

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Previous studies on Preferred Argument Structure have suggested (Du Bois 1987, 2002) and accepted (e.g. Goldberg 2004) specific cognitive motivations for PAS, namely that the general restriction of lexical arguments and new referents to the S and O roles facilitates the conceptually onerous task of referent introduction. In this paper, conversation data from English and Portuguese are analyzed. The data are generally inconsistent with the putative cognitive motivations for PAS presented in the literature. They suggest instead that PAS is most likely epiphenomenal and due to basic semantic and pragmatic factors, for example the correlation between human referents and given/non-lexical arguments, and the correlation between human referents and the A role.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-24
Number of pages24
JournalStudies in Language
Volume33
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009

Fingerprint

pragmatics
conversation
Semantics
semantics
Referent
Argument Structure
literature

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Communication

Cite this

A reconsideration of the motivations for preferred argument structure. / Everett, Caleb.

In: Studies in Language, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2009, p. 1-24.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c8027034081f4589aa582b25dea7f924,
title = "A reconsideration of the motivations for preferred argument structure",
abstract = "Previous studies on Preferred Argument Structure have suggested (Du Bois 1987, 2002) and accepted (e.g. Goldberg 2004) specific cognitive motivations for PAS, namely that the general restriction of lexical arguments and new referents to the S and O roles facilitates the conceptually onerous task of referent introduction. In this paper, conversation data from English and Portuguese are analyzed. The data are generally inconsistent with the putative cognitive motivations for PAS presented in the literature. They suggest instead that PAS is most likely epiphenomenal and due to basic semantic and pragmatic factors, for example the correlation between human referents and given/non-lexical arguments, and the correlation between human referents and the A role.",
author = "Caleb Everett",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1075/sl.33.1.02eve",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "1--24",
journal = "Studies in Language",
issn = "0378-4177",
publisher = "John Benjamins Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A reconsideration of the motivations for preferred argument structure

AU - Everett, Caleb

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Previous studies on Preferred Argument Structure have suggested (Du Bois 1987, 2002) and accepted (e.g. Goldberg 2004) specific cognitive motivations for PAS, namely that the general restriction of lexical arguments and new referents to the S and O roles facilitates the conceptually onerous task of referent introduction. In this paper, conversation data from English and Portuguese are analyzed. The data are generally inconsistent with the putative cognitive motivations for PAS presented in the literature. They suggest instead that PAS is most likely epiphenomenal and due to basic semantic and pragmatic factors, for example the correlation between human referents and given/non-lexical arguments, and the correlation between human referents and the A role.

AB - Previous studies on Preferred Argument Structure have suggested (Du Bois 1987, 2002) and accepted (e.g. Goldberg 2004) specific cognitive motivations for PAS, namely that the general restriction of lexical arguments and new referents to the S and O roles facilitates the conceptually onerous task of referent introduction. In this paper, conversation data from English and Portuguese are analyzed. The data are generally inconsistent with the putative cognitive motivations for PAS presented in the literature. They suggest instead that PAS is most likely epiphenomenal and due to basic semantic and pragmatic factors, for example the correlation between human referents and given/non-lexical arguments, and the correlation between human referents and the A role.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=60049090033&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=60049090033&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1075/sl.33.1.02eve

DO - 10.1075/sl.33.1.02eve

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:60049090033

VL - 33

SP - 1

EP - 24

JO - Studies in Language

JF - Studies in Language

SN - 0378-4177

IS - 1

ER -