Elucidating the notion of syntax–pragmatics interface

Tsoulas, George; Gil, Kook-Hee

doi:10.1075/lab.1.1.18tso

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The interpretation of ta tested here stems from the D-pronoun nature. At the most it involves lexicon-syntax and syntax-semantics interfaces (Tsoulas and Gil, 2011). It does not involve external interfaces, as no pragmatic constraint is concerned.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interpretation of Chinese overt and null embedded arguments by English-speaking learners

Zhao

2012

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been proposed that external interfaces are vulnerable to residue optionality, whereas pure syntax and internal interfaces are acquirable in second language (L2) acquisition (Sorace, 2005(Sorace, , 2011Sorace and Filiaci, 2006). The proposal was tested in this article through the interpretation of overt and null embedded arguments in L2 Chinese grammars. The article identifies two types of null elements in Chinese: Ø ziji and Ø topic . Ø ziji is a purely syntactic category, whereas Ø topic is a syntax-discourse interface category. Being a D-pronoun, ta 'he/him' can refer to either the matrix subject or a discourse entity in the embedded argument position. Its interpretation involves lexicon-syntax and syntax-semantics internal interfaces. Results from a picture judgment task showed that external interfaces were acquired as well as pure syntax and internal interfaces, which supports the claims of Ivanov, 2009;Iverson et al., 2008;Kraš, 2008;Rothman, 2007Rothman, , 2009Slabakova and Ivanov, 2011. In addition, Ø topic was acquired at different states in different sentence positions. This supports the claim that interface categories should not be considered holistically (Yuan, 2010). The article further speculates that cross-linguistic influence and the nature of the possible positive evidence may have contributed to the difference here in terms of representation and/or processing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study is not concerned with any pragmatic constraint for the interpretation of ta. Therefore, its interpretation does not involve external interfaces here (Tsoulas and Gil, 2011). At most it involves lexicon-syntax and syntax-semantics internal interfaces.…”

Section: The Experiments 1 Research Questions and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpretation of Chinese overt and null embedded arguments by English-speaking learners

Zhao

2012

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, Sorace argues that focus pertains to an internal interface, because it "involve[s] formal semantic features internal to grammatical representations" rather than "contextual information external to the grammar" (Sorace, 2011, p. 5). Those disputing this claim argue that focus should be treated like topics and other information-structural phenomena as belonging to an external interface Slabakova, 2011;Tsoulas & Gil, 2011).…”

Section: Heritage Spanish and The Syntax-discourse Interfacementioning

confidence: 99%

Narrow presentational focus in heritage Spanish and the syntax‒discourse interface

Hoot

2016

LAB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The grammars of bilinguals have been found to differ from those of monolinguals especially with regard to phenomena that involve the interface of syntax and discourse/pragmatics. This paper examines one syntax‒discourse interface phenomenon – presentational focus – in the grammars of heritage speakers of Spanish. The results of a contextualized acceptability judgment task indicate that lower proficiency heritage speakers show some variability in the structures they accept to realize focus, whereas higher proficiency heritage bilinguals pattern with monolinguals. These results suggest that some explanations of domain-specific vulnerability in bilingual grammars, including the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace, 2011), may need to be revised.

show abstract

“…Intermediate and high-proficiency L2 learners do not have any problem with interpreting himself/herself in biclausal sentences. The interpretation of reflexives in these sentence types involves, at the most, syntax–lexicon and syntax–semantics interfaces (Tsoulas & Gil, 2011). It does not involve external interfaces, as no pragmatics/discourse constraint is concerned.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of the interface categories on the acquisition patterns of English reflexives among learners of English as a foreign language

Zhang

et al. 2019

International Journal of Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Binding properties are difficult for learners to fully acquire. This study explored English-as-a-foreign-language learners’ acquisition patterns of the three binding properties of English reflexives and the effectiveness of the Interface Hypothesis. Methodology: One hundred and twenty-two native speakers of Chinese, a language with different binding properties, participated in the study; they were categorized into low, intermediate and advanced groups according to an English proficiency test. They were read 32 stories of 2 to 5 sentences each and were required to provide a comment sentence instantiating the three binding properties; i.e. c-command, subject orientation and locality. Data and analysis: A mixed repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with group and individual results of the experimental task to ascertain whether there were significant differences across different binding properties and among the three proficiency groups. Findings: Results from a truth-value judgment task indicate that the within-groups difficulty order of the three distinct binding properties is that: (a) for the low-proficiency group, c-command was easier than locality and orientation; and (b) for the intermediate-proficiency and the high-proficiency groups, c-command was easier than locality which, in turn, was easier than orientation. Among the three proficiency-groups, four acquisition patterns were found, which standard Binding Theory and its extensions cannot adequately explain. Originality: This is the first study to provide a variable-dependent account. It is argued that success or failure in establishing interface relations in second language grammars is likely to depend on a number of variables, including the involvement of the syntax–lexicon interface, syntax–semantics interface and syntax–discourse interface. Implications: The research suggests that the acquisition of English reflexives is variable-dependent, but not domain-wide. Specifically, the relationship between the binder and anaphoric expression can be established between the anaphors and some of their potential antecedents in second language English grammars, but not others, lending support to the Interface Hypothesis.

show abstract

Elucidating the notion of syntax–pragmatics interface

Cited by 4 publications

References 2 publications

Interpretation of Chinese overt and null embedded arguments by English-speaking learners

Interpretation of Chinese overt and null embedded arguments by English-speaking learners

Narrow presentational focus in heritage Spanish and the syntax‒discourse interface

Effects of the interface categories on the acquisition patterns of English reflexives among learners of English as a foreign language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About