lnu.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 42 of 42
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Stockholm University.
    A review of Arbib, M. A. 2012. How the Brain got Language: the mirror system hypothesis2013In: Nordic Journal of Linguistics, ISSN 0332-5865, E-ISSN 1502-4717, Vol. 36, no 1, p. 89-94Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 2.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Stockholm University.
    A review of Jackendoff, R. 2010. Meaning and the Lexicon2011In: Linguist list, ISSN 1068-4875Article, book review (Refereed)
  • 3.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Stockholm University.
    A review of "The  Handbook of Compounding"2010In: Linguist list, ISSN 1068-4875Article, book review (Refereed)
  • 4.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Lund University.
    A unified account of pronouns and reflexives2006Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 5.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Stockholm University.
    Adjectives and clausal complementation2012In: Working papers in Scandinavian syntax, ISSN 1100-097X, no 89, p. 37-67Article in journal (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In this paper I show that Swedish has a type of relative clause that doesn’t modifynominal expressions, contrary tomost descriptions/definitions of relative clauses.Instead this type of relative clause modifies evaluative predicates. The relativeclause has similarities to both control clauses and attributive relative clauses.I point out some issues that theoretical accounts of these relative clauses musttake into consideration, and also how current generative analyses fail to meetthese considerations. A promising route in such a generative framework seemsto be one where the head of the relative clause and the relative clause itself areindependently merged in the structure; the head as subject in the matrix clauseand the relative clause as an adjunct/complement to the predicate it modifies.What makes this relative clause different from NP modifying relative clauses isthe relation between the gap and the head.

  • 6.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    University of Gothenburg.
    Binding and the interfaces2008Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 7.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Stockholm University.
    Evaluative adjectives and relative clauses.2012In: Discourse and Grammar: a festschrift in honor of Valéria Molnár / [ed] J. Brandtler, D. Håkansson, S. Huber and E. Klingvall, Lund: Lund University , 2012, p. 265-280Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 8.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Stockholm University.
    Finiteness in Swedish2012In: Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, ISSN 1100-097X, no 90, p. 29p. 81-110Article in journal (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper investigates tenseless finite clauses in Swedish. In certain contexts thefinite perfect auxiliary, ha ‘have’, is optional. These contexts are finite non-V2clauses and V2 clauses in which the V2 position is filled by a modal adverb, forexample kanske ‘maybe’. The analysis of these tenseless clauses is presented inthe constraint based lexicalist theory, lexical functional grammar. The analysisbuilds on, and develops, the one presented by Sells (2007).

  • 9.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
    Light verb objects2009In: Grammatik i Fokus, 5-6 Februari, Lund University, 2009Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 10.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    University of Gothenburg.
    Light verbs and argument interpretation2008Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 11.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    University of Gothenburg.
    Long object shift and agreement2008Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 12.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Stockholm University.
    Long object shift and reflexives2010In: Nordic Journal of Linguistics, ISSN 0332-5865, E-ISSN 1502-4717, Vol. 33, no 1, p. 67-80Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This short communication is concerned with long object shift of reflexives in Swedish. Only 3rd person reflexives can shift across their antecedent. For some reason this is possible even if the antecedent is 1st or 2nd person as well, but certain requirements on the antecedent are necessary. This paper shows that neither a purely syntactic nor a purely semantic analysis can account for all the facts. Instead the best analysis seems to be one that makes use of Bonet's (1995) post-syntactic morphological processes: feature delinking, feature erasure and feature insertion.

  • 13.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    University of Gothenburg.
    Probes, pronouns and binding in the Minimalist Program2008Book (Refereed)
  • 14.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Stockholm University.
    Probing phrases, pronouns and binding2009In: Merging Features: Computation, Interpretation and Acquisition / [ed] José M. Brucart, A. Gavarro, and J. Solá, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 25-45Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 15.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Lund University.
    Probing phrases, pronouns, and binding2006Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 16.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Review of Jon Sprouse & Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects.2014In: Nordic Journal of Linguistics, ISSN 0332-5865, E-ISSN 1502-4717, Vol. 37, no 3, p. 463-470Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 17.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Stockholm University.
    Swedish evaluative relative clauses2011Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 18.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Tense and Finiteness in Swedish2015In: The Linguistic Association of Great Britain, Annual Meeting 2015: University College London, 2015Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 19.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Stockholm University.
    Vilka faktorer påverkar grammatikalitet2010In: Grammatikfestival Göteborgs universitet, 2010Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Vilka konstruktioner som Äar mÄojliga eller inte mÄojliga i ett sprºak kan tyckas varaen enkel frºaga som har ett objektivt svar. I praktiken visar det sig att det inte allsÄar sºa lÄatt att kategorisera konstruktioner som grammatiska eller ogrammatiska.Till att bÄorja med sºa verkar en tvºadelad klassi¯cering av uttryck i grammatisk{ogrammatisk vara alldeles fÄor grov. Dessutom har infÄodda talare olika uppfattningom vad som ska klassi¯ceras som grammatiskt och ogrammatiskt. Det ¯nns ocksºaen hel del andra faktorer som pºaverkar en talares bedÄomning av grammatikalitet.Det kan rÄora sig om sºa enkla faktorer som enskilda ord eller lÄangden pºa en mening.I en studie av passiva konstruktioner i ¯nska ¯ck experimentets deltagare, ¯nskamodersmºalstalare, rangordna 50 meningar efter grammatikalitet. Metoden somanvÄandes kallas 'magnitude estimation' och insamlingen av data skedde med hjÄalpav ett webbaserat datainsamlingsprogram, webexp. I det hÄar fÄoredraget kommerjag att presentera dels metoden, som ursprungligen anvÄants inom psykofysik fÄoratt mÄata fÄorsÄokspersoners upplevelser av fysisk stimuli, sºasom ljusfÄorÄandringaroch smÄarta, och dels det webbaserade datainsamlingsprogrammet. Jag kommerocksºa att diskutera de faktorer som verkar pºaverka deltagarnas uppfattning omgrammatikalitet i experimentet.

  • 20.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Klingvall, Eva
    Lund University, Sweden.
    Anaphoric Reference to Quantified Expressions in Swedish2019In: Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, ISSN 0090-6905, E-ISSN 1573-6555, Vol. 48, no 3, p. 551-568Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper presents the results from two studies on anaphoric reference to quantifying expressions (QEs) in Swedish, contributing to the current cross-linguistic discussion on this issue. For English it has been shown that the polarity of the QE (positive vs negative) determines the anaphoric set reference (to the referens set, REFSET, or to the complement set, COMPSET), while for Spanish it has been claimed that while REFSET interpretation is the default, the relative sizes of the two sets (REFSET and COMPSET) also matters. In Experiment 1, a semantic plausibility study. The results showed that for positive QEs, anaphoric reference can only be to the REFSET, while for negative QEs, it can only be to the COMPSET. Unlike in English and Spanish, REFSET continuations were categorically ruled out for negative QEs. To investigate whether the internal differences between QEs could be explained in terms of set size, we conducted Experiment 2, an estimation task. The results from this experiment showed that the size of the REFSET relative to the COMPSET was not a determining factor.

  • 21.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Klingvall, Eva
    Lund University.
    Quantifiers and Discourse Referents in Swedish: An ERP Study2018In: Eleventh International Conference on the Mental Lexicon 2018: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada September 25-28, 2018 : Abstract Booklet / [ed] Victor Kuperman, 2018, p. 93-93Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this talk, we present the results from an Event Related Potentials (ERP) study on the processing of anaphoric reference to quantied expressions (QEs) in Swedish. QEs pick out proportions of possible members of some set for which a property holds. In (1a) and (1b), for example, some or few members of the set of students attended the lecture.

    (1)  a. Some students attended the lecture.    b. Few students attended the lecture.

    (2)  a. They found it very interesting.    b. They stayed at home instead.

    Some and few differ in polarity: some is positive (upward entailing) while few is negative (downward entailing) (Peters and Westerstahl, 2006) and this is of importance when referring back to the QE using anaphoric expressions. The sentence in (1a) is naturally followed by (2a), which is about the students attending the lecture (the reference set, refset). The sentence in (1b), in contrast, is naturally followed by (2b), which is about the students not attending the lecture (the complement set, compset) (e.g. Moxey and Sanford, 1987). While (1b) can in fact be followed either by (2a) or (2b), (1a), cannot be followed by (2b).

    Filik et al. (2011) is one of few studies of anaphoric reference to QEs in English using online measures (ERP). They report results for positive and negative QEs separately. Each type of QE shows refset and compset eects, as described above, on the disambiguating word. A larger N400 for compset vs. refset continuations for posivive QEs, and the opposite for negative QEs. However, they do not report any results for the contrast between positive and negative QEs in the compset condition. Since this is a very important condition and since it is known that QEs dier across languages (Nouwen, 2010; Tsai et al., 2014), we investigated this issue for Swedish.

    160 experimental items of four sentences each were manipulated along two dimensions: polarity (positive vs negative quantifier, några vs få in (3)), and set (refset vs compset targeting disambiguating adjective, duktiga vs dåliga in (3)). The quantiers included were: några (`some’), få (`few’), många (`many’), inte många (`not many’), alla (`all’), inga (`no’), nästan alla (`almost all’), inte alla’ (`not all’).

    (3) Några/Få studenter skrev bra på tentan    some/few students wrote well on the-exam

    igår och att deCW var såyesterday and that they were so

    duktiga/dåligaCW förbryllade professorn.good/bad confused the-professor

    Unlike Filik et al. (2011) we found that positive QEs showed a pronounced positivity over the central region (FCZ, CZ, CPZ, PZ) in the compset condition relative to negative QEs, in the P600 time span (500{800 ms) after the onset of the critical word (the disambiguating adjective,`bad’). A linear mixed eects model analysis (LmerTest) showed a highly signicant main eect of polarity in the central region and the P600 time span above. We interpret this to mean that for positive QEs, a new discourse referent needs to be introduced following compset reference, while for negative QEs this discourse referentis already available (Burkhardt, 2007).

    References

    Burkhardt, Petra. 2007. The p600 reflects cost of new information in discourse memory. Neuroreport 18:1851 - 1854.Filik, Ruth, Hartmut Leuthold, Linda M. Moxey, and Anthony J. Sanford. 2011. Anaphoric reference to quantied antecedents: An event-related brain potential study. Neuropsychologia 49:3786 - 3794.

    Moxey, Linda M., and Anthony J. Sanford. 1987. Quantiers and focus. Journal of semantics 5:189 - 206.Nouwen, Rick. 2010. What’s in a quantier? In The linguistics enterprise: from knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics, ed. Martin Everaert, Tom Lentz, Hannah de Mulder, Øystein Nilsen, and Arjen Zondervan, 235 - 256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Peters, Stanley, and Dag Westerståhl. 2006. Quantiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Tsai, C.-Y. Edwin, Gregory Scontras, Kenneth Mai, and Maria Polinsky. 2014. Prohibiting inverse scope: An experimental study of Chinese vs. English. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 10 , ed. Christopher Pi~non, 305 - 322. Paris: CSSP.

  • 22.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Klingvall, Eva
    Lund University.
    Reference to Quantified Expressions in Swedish: an ERP Study2018In: Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing 2018: Proceedings / [ed] Pia Knoeferle, Berlin: Humboldt-Universita ̈t zu Berlin , 2018, p. 167-167Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    We present the results from an Event Related Potentials (ERP) study on the processing of anaphoric reference to quantified expressions (QEs) in Swedish. QEs pick out proportions of possible members of some set for which a property holds. In (1a) and (1b), for example, some or few members of the set of students attended the lecture.

    (1) a. Some students attended the lecture.    b. Few students attended the lecture.

    (2) a. They found it very interesting.    b. They stayed at home instead.

    Some and few differ in polarity: some is positive (upward entailing) while few is negative (downward entailing) (Peters and Westerståhl, 2006) and this is of importance when referring back to the QE using anaphoric expressions. The sentence in (1a) is naturally followed by (2a), which is about the students attending the lecture (the reference set, REFSET). The sentence in (1b), in contrast, is naturally followed by (2b), which is about the students not attending the lecture (the complement set, COMPSET) (e.g. Moxey and Sanford, 1987). While (1b) can in fact be followed either by (2a) or (2b), (1a), cannot be followed by (2b).

    Filik et al. (2011) is one of few studies of anaphoric reference to QEs in English using online measures (ERP). They report results for positive and negative QEs separately. Each type of QE shows REFSET and COMPSET effects, as described above, on the disambiguating word. A larger N400 for COMPSET vs. REFSET continuations for positive QEs, and the opposite for negative QEs. However, they do not report any results for the contrast between positive and negative QEs in the COMPSET condition. Since this is a very important condition and since it is known that QEs differ across languages (Nouwen, 2010; Tsai et al., 2014), we investigated this issue for Swedish.

    160 experimental items of four sentences each were manipulated along two dimensions: polarity (positive vs negative quantifier, några vs få in (3)), and set (REFSET vs COMPSET targeting disambiguating adjective, duktiga vs dåliga in (3)). The quantifiers included were: några (‘some’) ,få (‘few’), många (‘many’), inte många (‘not many’), alla (‘all’), inga (‘no’), nästan alla (‘almost all’), inte alla’ (‘not all’).

    (3) Några/Få studenter skrev bra på tentan igår och att deCW var så duktiga/dåligaCW förbryllade professorn.

    some/few students wrote well on the exam yesterday and that they were so good/bad confused the professor.

    There were four lists with 40 sentences from each condition. Each participant (29 in total, results reported below based on the first 13) only saw one sentence from each item, but saw all types of manipulation. In total, each participant read 400 sentences (160 test items, 240 fillers).

    Unlike Filik et al. (2011) we found that positive QEs showed a pronounced positivity over the central region (FCZ, CZ, CPZ, PZ) in the COMPSET condition relative to negative QEs, in the P600 time span (500–800 ms) after the onset of the critical word (the disambiguating adjective, ‘bad’). A linear mixed effects model analysis (LmerTest) showed a highly significant main effect of polarity in the central region and the P600 time span above. We interpret this to mean that for positive QEs, a new discourse referent needs to be introduced following COMPSET reference, while for negative QEs this discourse referent is already available (Burkhardt, 2007).

  • 23.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Stockholm University.
    Klingvall, Eva
    Lund University.
    Manninen, Satu
    Agreeing passives in Finnish2011Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 24.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Stockholm University.
    Klingvall, Eva
    Lund University.
    Manninen, Satu
    Lund University.
    How do things get done?: On non-canonical passives in Finnish2011Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 25.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Klingvall, Eva
    Lund University.
    Tutunjian, Damon
    Lund University.
    Wiklund, Anna-Lena
    Lund University.
    An eye-tracking study of Swedish filler-gap dependencies: processing relative clause extraction.2015In: Architectures & Mechanisms for Language Processing 2015 University ofMalta, 2015Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 26.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Klingvall, Eva
    Lund University.
    Tutunjian, Damon
    Lund University.
    Wiklund, Anna-Lena
    Lund University.
    Processing Long-Distance Dependencies in Swedish2015Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 27.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Klingvall, Eva
    Lund University.
    Tutunjian, Damon
    Lund University.
    Wiklund, Anna-Lena
    Lund University.
    Processing relative clause extractions in Swedish2015In: Experimental Psycholinguistics Conference, Universidad de Madrid, 2015Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 28.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Klingvall, Eva
    Lund University.
    Tutunjian, Damon
    Lund University.
    Wiklund, Anna-Lena
    Lund University.
    Processing Swedish relative clause extractions: An eyetracking study2015In: XII International Symposium of Psycholinguistics, 2015Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Noun phrases involving relative clauses are assumed to universally comprise syntactic “islands” for extraction, but Swedish exists as a possible exception. Using eyetracking while reading, we investigated whether extraction from Swedish restrictive relative clauses (RCE) ([such old wheelbarrows]1 saw I a man that always washed __1 with benzine...) elicit similar processing costs as extractions from non-restrictive relative clauses, which are known to comprise strong islands (StrongIs); or if they pattern closer to extractions from non-island constructions (NonIs). We also examined to what extent non-linguistic variables (working memory WM, verb-object frequency, and pragmatic-fit) contribute to such differences. Results from a mixed models analysis of the embedded verb (washed) and spillover region (with...) suggest that in early measures, both RCE and NonIs show facilitation relative to StrongIs, but in late measures, RCE patterns closer to StrongIs as WM and pragmatic-fit increase, suggesting that Swedish RCE acceptability is partly dependent on non-linguistic factors.

  • 29.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Klingvall, Eva
    Lund University.
    Tutunjian, Damon
    Lund University.
    Wiklund, Anna-Lena
    Lund University.
    Superadditive effects in judgments of relative clause extractions2016Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Relative clause extractions generally yield so-called island effects (degraded judgments) across languages (Ross 1967), (1). However, Swedish and the other Mainland Scandinavian languages comprise famous exceptions to this pattern (e.g. Engdahl & Ejerhed 1982), cf. (2).

    (1) *Those kind of books I know a girl that writes.

    (2) Såna böcker känner jag en tjej som skriver.

    The origin of island effects is under debate. Sprouse et al. (2012) found superadditive effects in judgments of island violations in English – combined effects greater than the sum of the individual costs for extraction and complexity (island structure). Because no correlation was found between participants' memory span (measured via serial recall and n-back) and the superadditive effects, they concluded that island effects must be derived from violations of syntactic constraints rather than processing limitations. In contrast, Hofmeister et al. (2014) did find a correlation between working memory span (measured via reading span) and superadditivity in a rapid serial visual representation experiment. They also found superadditive effects in fully grammatical, but hard to process sentences, suggesting that processing factors do play a role in superadditivity and hence in island effects.

    In our talk, we report on the results from an acceptability judgment experiment that was designed to look for superadditive effects in judgments of relative clause extractions in Swedish, to help determine whether these structures – even though claimed to be acceptable – behave like other island violations with regard to superadditivity. If they do, then this would reduce some of the exceptionality of their status. In the experiment, we investigated the (super)additive effect of clause type (TC vs. RC) and extraction type (long vs. short) on acceptability ratings, and tested whether any such effects correlate with memory span, as measured via an n-back and a reading span task. Our expectation was that the latter test would provide a much better marker of WM than the former.

    Det var Anna som anmälde en kille som snattade såna chokladkakor i godisaffären. RC + ShortExt Det var Anna som anmälde att en kille snattade såna chokladkakor i godisaffären. TC + ShortExt Det var såna chokladkakor som Anna anmälde en kille som snattade i godisaffären. RC + LongExt Det var såna chokladkakor som Anna anmälde att en kille snattade i godisaffären. TC + LongExt

  • 30.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Klingvall, Eva
    Lund University.
    Tutunjian, Damon
    Lund University.
    Wiklund, Anna-Lena
    Lund University.
    Superadditivity, working memory, and island effects2016Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 31.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Klingvall, Eva
    Lund University.
    Tutunjian, Damon
    Lund University.
    Wiklund, Anna-Lena
    Lund University.
    The island status of Swedish relative clauses: Evidence from processing2015In: The Linguistic Association of Great Britain, Annual Meeting 2015: University College London, 2015Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 32.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Stockholm University.
    Manninen, Satu
    Lund University.
    Evidence for a Finnish Personal Passive2010Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 33.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Stockholm University.
    Manninen, Satu
    Lund University.
    Gradient Well-formedness of Finnish Passive Constructions2013In: Proceedings of the 24th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics / [ed] Jani-Matti Tirkkonen & Esa Anttikoski, University of Eastern Finland Press , 2013, p. 59-70Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 34.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages. Stockholm University.
    Manninen, Satu
    Lund University.
    How do things get done: on non-canonical passives in Finnish2013In: Non-canonical passives / [ed] A. Alexiadou and F. Schäfer, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2013, p. 213-234Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 35.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Stockholm University.
    Manninen, Satu
    Lund University.
    Using gradient acceptability judgments to investigate syntactic constructions,2010Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 36.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages. Stockholm University.
    Wiklund, Anna-Lena
    Lund University.
    Restrictions on RC Extraction: Knowing men who sell flowers and escaping them2014Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 37.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    et al.
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Wiklund, Anna-Lena
    Lund University, Sweden.
    Scandinavian Relative Clause Extraction: apparent restrictions2015In: Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, ISSN 1100-097X, Vol. 94, p. 36-50Article in journal (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This brief article investigates the restrictions on Mainland Scandinavian relative clause extraction that have figured in the literature on island constraints. The conclusion is that none of these restrictions can be regarded as constraints on relative clause extraction per se and therefore that the peripheral status standardly assigned to Mainland Scandinavian relative clause extraction cannot be maintained.

  • 38.
    Klingvall, Eva
    et al.
    Lund University.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Anaphoric reference to quantifying expressions in Swedish2018In: Grammatikk i Norden 2 (GRAMINO): Oslo 15-16 May 2018, 2018Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Both (1) and (2) say that some undefined, small number of students went to the lecture, but the sentences differ in what type of quantifier is used: Några (‘some’) is a positive (upward entailing) quantifier, while (‘few’) is a negative (downward entailing) quantifier (Peters and Westerståhl, 2006).

    (1) Några studenter gick på föreläsningen.    some students went to the-lecture

    (2) Få studenter gick på föreläsningen.    few students went to the-lecture

    When referring back to ‘the students’ in (1) and (2), a difference in which students are referred to can be detected. (1) is naturally followed by (3), which talks about the students attending the lecture (the reference set), while (2) is naturally followed by (4), which talks about the students not attending the lecture (the complement set) (e.g. Moxey and Sanford, 1987). Whereas (3) can also follow (2) (although not as easily as (4)), (4) is only acceptable following (2).

    (3) De tyckte den var väldigt intressant.    they thougth it was very interesting

    (4) De stannade hemma i stället.    they stayed home instead

    Anaphoric reference to quantifiers has been investigated extensively and we know that upward/downward entailment is one factor that influences set-reference in English (see e.g. Moxey and Sanford, 1987; San- ford et al., 1996; Paterson et al., 1998; Moxey et al., 2001; Moxey, 2006; Filik et al., 2011). However, to our knowledge there are no investigations of set-reference in Swedish. As quantifiers do not always behave the same across languages (Nouwen, 2010; Tsai et al., 2014), we investigated this issue for Swedish in a semantic plausibility study where we tested whether quantified expressions gave rise to reference set or complement set interpretations.

    The material was manipulated along two dimensions: positive vs negative quantifier (några vs in (5)), and refset vs compset targeting disambiguating adjective (duktiga vs dåliga in (5)). The quantifiers included were: några (‘some’), (‘few’), många (‘many’), inte många (‘not many’), alla (‘all’), inga (‘no’), nästan alla (‘almost all’), inte alla’ (‘not all’).

    (5) Några/Få studenter skrev bra på tentan igår och att de var så duktiga/dåligasome/few students wrote well on exam yesterday and that they were so good/bad

    förbryllade professorn.confused the-professor

    The results were that positive quantifiers with anaphoric reference to the compset were judged as anomalous, and negative quantifiers with anaphoric reference to the refset were judged as anomalous, although there was more variation with regard to the negative ones. As expected, these results are in line with previous studies.

    Referenser

    Filik, Ruth, Hartmut Leuthold, Linda M. Moxey, and Anthony J. Sanford. 2011. Anaphoric reference to quantified antecedents: An event-related brain potential study. Neuropsychologia 49:3786–3794.

    Moxey, Linda M. 2006. Effects of what is expected on the focussing properties of quantifiers: A test of the presupposition-denial account. Journal of Memory and Language 55:422–439.

    Moxey, Linda M., and Anthony J. Sanford. 1987. Quantifiers and focus. Journal of semantics 5:189–206.

    Moxey, Linda M., Anthony J. Sanford, and E. Dawydiak. 2001. Denials as controllers of negative quantifier focus. Journal of memory & language 44:427–442.

    Nouwen, Rick. 2010. What’s in a quantifier? In The linguistics enterprise: from knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics, ed. Martin Everaert, Tom Lentz, Hannah de Mulder, Øystein Nilsen, and Arjen Zondervan, 235–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Paterson, Kevin B., Anthony J. Sanford, Linda M. Moxey, and Eugene Dawydiak. 1998. Quantifier polarity and referential focus during reading. Journal of Memory and Language 39:290–306.

    Peters, Stanley, and Dag Westerst ̊ahl. 2006. Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sanford, Anthony J., Linda M. Moxey, and Kevin B. Paterson. 1996. Attentional focusing with quantifiers in production and comprehension. Memory &

    Cognition 24:144–155.Tsai, C.-Y. Edwin, Gregory Scontras, Kenneth Mai, and Maria Polinsky. 2014. Prohibiting inverse scope: An experimental study of Chinese vs. English.

    In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 10, ed. Christopher Pin ̃o ́n, 305–322. Paris: CSSP.

  • 39.
    Klingvall, Eva
    et al.
    Lund University.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Referential mismatches: complement set reference2018In: MISM4TCHES (4-5 October, 2018) Universidad Cisneriana (UAH): Sala de Conferencias Internacionales. Pza. S. Diego, 2018Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this talk, we present the results of a semantic plausibility study investigating systematic mismatches in anaphoric reference to quantified expressions (QEs) in Swedish. Sentences as (1)–(2) have a similar meaning but differ in their use of quantifier: some is a positive (upward entailing) quantifier, while few is a negative (downward entailing) quantifier [1].

    (1) Some students attended the lecture.

    (2) Few students attended the lecture.

    Both (1) and (2) are sentences about students attending a lecture. However, when referring back to ‘the students’, a difference can be detected between the two sentences. (1) is naturally followed by a sentence like (3), which, like (1), is about the students attending the lecture (the reference set, REFSET). (2), on the other hand, is naturally followed by (4), which differs from (2) in being about the students not attending the lecture (the complement set, COMPSET) [e.g. 2]. While (2) can in fact be followed either by (3) or (4), is also a possible continuation of (2), the case where there is a mismatch, i.e. (4) following (2), is actually the preferred continuation [3]. For (1), the mismatch continuation ((4) following (1)) is not allowed.

    (3)  They found it very interesting.

    (4)  They stayed at home instead.

    Anaphoric reference to QEs has been extensively investigated in English and one important factor influencing set-reference is the positivity/negativity of the quantifier [see e.g. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. As quantifiers do not always behave the same across languages [7, 8], we investigated this issue for Swedish in a semantic plausibility study where we tested whether quantified expressions gave rise to REFSET or COMPSET interpretations.

    The material was manipulated along two dimensions: positive vs negative quantifier (några vs  in (5)), and REFSET vs COMPSET targeting disambiguating adjective (duktiga vs dåliga in (5)). The quantifiers included were: några (‘some’),  (‘few’), många (‘many’), inte många (‘not many’), alla (‘all’), inga (‘no’), nästan alla (‘almost all’), inte alla’ (‘not all’).

    (5) Några/Få studenter skrev bra på tentan igår och att de var såsome/few students wrote well on the-exam yesterday and that they were soduktiga/dåliga förbryllade professorn.good/bad confused the-professor

    A linear mixed model showed that positive quantifiers with anaphoric reference to the REF-SET were judged as semantically congruent, while they were judged as anomalous with ana- phoric reference to the COMPSET. For the negative quantifiers, the opposite pattern emerged: they were judged as congruent with anaphoric reference to the COMPSET but anomalous with the reference to the REFSET. There was also a difference between positive and negative QEs. The preferred continuation for positive QEs, the matching continuation, was rated as more con- gruent than the preferred continuation for negative QEs, the mismatched continuation. There were also internal differences within the groups of positive and negative quantifiers. More spe- cifically, sentences where the syntactic subject included the positive quantifier några (‘some’) were significantly different from sentences with the other positive quantifiers in the subject: when reference was made to the REFSET, the sentences were judged as semantically congruent to a lesser degree than for the other positive quantifiers. Similarly for the negative quantifiers få (‘few’) and inte alla (‘not all’): when reference was made to the COMPSET, the sentences were judged as semantically congruent to a lesser degree than for the negative quantifiers inga (‘no’) and inte många (‘not many’).

    In a follow-up study, we investigated whether the relative size of the sets, in terms of number of members, influence anaphoric set interpretation. According to Zulaica-Herna ́ndez [9], the set with the largest number of members is the one most easily referred to. In relation to our results, this would mean that några (‘some’) should pick out a smaller REFSET than the other three positive QEs, and  (‘few’) and inte alla (‘not all’) should pick out larger REFSET than inga (‘no’) and inte många (‘not many’). To test these claims, we carried out an investigation using a questionnaire where each participant was instructed to write down the number they thought a quantifier corresponded to, given a fixed total number and a specific context, as in the following example [cf. 10]:

    (6) There were 100 students in the auditory. QE of them had been there before. How many do you think had been there before? ANSWER:

    The results were that några (‘some’) was taken to pick out a significantly smaller REFSET than the other positive QEs, and inte alla (‘not all’) was taken to pick out a significantly larger REFSET than inte många (‘not many’). However,  (‘few’) was taken to pick out a smaller, rather than bigger, REFSET than inte många (‘not many’). In addition,  (‘few’) and inte alla (‘not all’) were taken to pick out REFSET of very different sizes. Thus, these studies show that anaphoric reference to QEs in Swedish behaves as in English when it comes to polarity and also, unexpectedly, that the relative size of COMPSET and REFSET plays a role in the focussing one of the two sets.

    [1]  Stanley Peters and Dag Westersta ̊hl. Quantifi- ers in language and logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.

    [2]  Linda M. Moxey and Anthony J. Sanford. Quantifiers and focus. Journal of semantics, 5:189–206, 1987.

    [3]  Anthony J. Sanford, Linda M. Moxey, and Kevin B. Paterson. Attentional focusing with quantifiers in production and comprehension.Memory & Cognition, 24(2):144–155, 1996.

    [4]  Kevin B. Paterson, Anthony J. Sanford, Linda M. Moxey, and Eugene Dawydiak. Quantifier polarity and referential focus dur- ing reading. Journal of Memory and Lan- guage, 39(2):290–306, 1998.

    [5]  Linda M. Moxey, Anthony J. Sanford, and E. Dawydiak. Denials as controllers of neg- ative quantifier focus. Journal of memory & language, 44:427–442, 2001.

    [6]  Linda M Moxey. Effects of what is expec- ted on the focussing properties of quantifi- ers: A test of the presupposition-denial ac- count. Journal of Memory and Language, 55 (3):422–439, 2006.

    [7]  Rick Nouwen. What’s in a quantifier? In Martin Everaert, Tom Lentz, Hannah de Mulder, Øystein Nilsen, and Arjen Zon- dervan, editors, The linguistics enterprise: from knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics, pages 235–256. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2010.

    [8]  C.-Y.EdwinTsai,GregoryScontras,Kenneth Mai, and Maria Polinsky. Prohibiting inverse scope: An experimental study of Chinese vs. English. In Christopher Pin ̃o ́n, editor, Empir- ical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 10, pages 305–322, Paris, 2014. CSSP.

    [9]  Iker Zulaica-Herna ́ndez. Complement ana- phora in Spanish: Reference and discourse re- lations. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 43(2):449–466, 2018.

    [10]  Linda M Moxey and Anthony J Sanford. Prior expectation and the interpretation of natural language quantifiers. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5:73–91, 1993.

  • 40.
    Tutunjian, Damon
    et al.
    Lund University.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Klingvall, Eva
    Lund University.
    Wiklund, Anna-Lena
    Lund University.
    Processing relative clause extractions in Swedish2017In: Frontiers in Psychology, ISSN 1664-1078, E-ISSN 1664-1078, Vol. 8, article id 2118Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Relative clauses are considered strong islands for extraction across languages. Swedish comprises a well-known exception, allegedly allowing extraction from relative clauses (RCE), raising the possibility that island constraints may be subject to "deep variation" between languages. One alternative is that such exceptions are only illusory and represent "surface variation" attributable to independently motivated syntactic properties. Yet, to date, no surface account has proven tenable for Swedish RCEs. The present study uses eyetracking while reading to test whether the apparent acceptability of Swedish RCEs has any processing correlates at the point of filler integration compared to uncontroversial strong island violations. Experiment 1 tests RCE against licit that-clause extraction (TCE), illicit extraction from a non-restrictive relative clause (NRCE), and an intransitive control. For this, RCE was found to pattern similarly to TCE at the point of integration in early measures, but between TCE and NRCE in total durations. Experiment 2 uses RCE and extraction from a subject NP island (SRCE) to test the hypothesis that only non-islands will show effects of implausible filler-verb dependencies. RCE showed sensitivity to the plausibility manipulation across measures at the first potential point of filler integration, whereas such effects were limited to latemeasures for SRCE. In addition, structural facilitation was seen across measures for RCE relative to SRCE. We propose that our results are compatible with RCEs being licit weak island extractions in Swedish, and that the overall picture speaks in favor of a surface rather than a deep variation approach to the lack of island effects in Swedish RCEs.

  • 41.
    Wiklund, Anna-Lena
    et al.
    Lund University.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Unbounded dependencies in Swedish: apparent restrictions2014In: LAGB Annual Meeting 2014 Abstracts Booklet: The Queen’s College, University of Oxford, Monday 1–Friday 5, September 2014, 2014, p. 111-111Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 42.
    Wiklund, Anna-Lena
    et al.
    Lund University.
    Heinat, Fredrik
    Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
    Klingvall, Eva
    Lund University.
    Tutunjian, Damon
    Lund University.
    An acceptability study of long-distance extractions in Swedish2017In: Language Processing and Disorders / [ed] Linda Escobar, VincençTorrens, Teresa Parodi, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017, p. 103-120Chapter in book (Refereed)
1 - 42 of 42
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf