ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
Brain and Language
Volume 96, Issue 3, March 2006, Pages 302-317
 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected
Article
Purchase PDF (281 K)

 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
View Record in Scopus
 
doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2005.06.005    How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)
Copyright © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Reference assignment: Using language breakdown to choose between theoretical approaches

Esther RuigendijkCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Nada Vasić and Sergey Avrutin

Utrecht University, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics, The Netherlands

Accepted 18 June 2005. 
Available online 8 August 2005.

Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Abstract

We report results of an experimental study with Dutch agrammatic aphasics that investigated their ability to interpret pronominal elements in transitive clauses and Exceptional Case Marking constructions (ECM). Using the obtained experimental results as a tool, we distinguish between three competing linguistic theories that aim at determining principles responsible for pronoun distribution: Government and Binding (Chomsky, 1981), Reflexivity (Reinhart & Reuland, 1993), and Primitives of Binding (Reuland, 2001). The obtained results are inconsistent with Government and Binding, but consistent with the latter two theories. We further show that the Primitives of Binding framework most naturally explains our results. Our proposal is based on the different performance demonstrated by patients in transitive clauses and ECM constructions, in combination with the often-made claim in the literature regarding the limitation of processing resources in this population (e.g., Haarmann and Kolk, 1991, Haarmann and Kolk, 1994 and Zurif et al., 1993, among others).

Keywords: Agrammatism; Pronouns; Reflexives; Comprehension; Binding; Exceptional case marking; Syntax; Processing capacity; Broca’s aphasia

Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Subjects
2.2. Materials and procedure
2.3. Results
3. Discussion and further results
4. General discussion
4.1. The agrammatic performance and the linguistic theories
5. Conclusion
Acknowledgements
Appendix A. Appendix
Appendix B. Test sentences
B.1. Anaphors in transitive sentences
B.2. Pronouns in transitive sentences
B.3. ECM sentences (pronoun/anaphor)
References


Brain and Language
Volume 96, Issue 3, March 2006, Pages 302-317
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.