/
~ more risky), use of themore variant is more common in syntactically ~ more risky), use of themore variant is more common in syntactically

~ more risky), use of themore variant is more common in syntactically - PDF document

ellena-manuel
ellena-manuel . @ellena-manuel
Follow
432 views
Uploaded On 2015-08-09

~ more risky), use of themore variant is more common in syntactically - PPT Presentation

than chasing bunniesOther types of complexity may also be relevantFor example the more variant may be morecommon with semantically complex abstractuses of adjectives like 3 than withsemantica ID: 103837

than chasing bunnies.Other types

Share:

Link:

Embed:


Presentation Transcript

~ more risky), use of themore variant is more common in syntactically complex environments (with a to+Vcomplement, as in (1)) than in syntactically simple environments (as in (2)).(1) Chasing tigers is m than chasing bunnies.Other types of complexity may also be relevant.For example, the more variant may be morecommon with semantically complex (abstract)uses of adjectives like (3), than withsemantically simpler (c than Hoboken.MondorfÕs (2003) Claims:¥ Increased use of more in complex environments is processing-based (not stylistic).¥ Speakers use more to help listeners by simplifying parsing, and by warning of upcoming complexity.But...¥ these data come from a corpus that is m Ó hypothesis by having speakers produce simpleand complex comparative sentences in time with a metronome (e.g., The sai-lorwas a variantto assist listeners (although listeners may still derive benefits from its use).SummaryExperiment 1: MethodsExperiment 2ConclusionsIs the effect of complexity general to any type of processing difficulty? Or is itspecific to difficulties internal to sentence production (e.g. increased processingloads associated with generating more complex syntactic structure, or moreabstract adjective senses)?In Experiment 2, speakers produced the simple sentences from Experiment 1,while sometimes holding an unrelated word in memory (an external load).Corpus Data (Mondorf, (note that the concrete vs. abstract uses were determined in a prior norming study)Complexity !M Õ choices based on communicative, listener-based factors?4.How does m use.The effect of complexity was notmore pronounced in communicativethan in non-communicativeenvironments, suggesting thatspeakers do not use more to assisttheir addressees.N = 56,30Error bars = 95% CISpeakers were no more likely toproduce the more variant whenunder an external memory loadthan when not under a load.The choice betweenmorphological alternatives isinfluenced only by sentence-internal factors.N = 56,30Error bars = 95% CIPreliminary results: speakers do notpreferentially produce more in complexenvironments when they speak slowly,and when more does not p