Explore the vast range of titles available.

Recent evidence suggests that spatial language in preschool positively affects the development of verbal number skills, as indexed by aggregated performances on counting and number naming tasks. We firstly aimed to specify whether spatial language (the knowledge of locative prepositions) significantly relates to both of these measures. In addition, we assessed whether the predictive value of spatial language extends beyond verbal number skills to numerical subdomains without explicit verbal component, such as number writing, symbolic magnitude classifications, ordinal judgments and numerosity comparisons. To determine the unique contributions of spatial language to these numerical skills, we controlled in our regression analyses for intrinsic and extrinsic spatial abilities, phonological awareness as well as age, socioeconomic status and home language. With respect to verbal number skills, it appeared that spatial language uniquely predicted forward and backward counting but not number naming, which was significantly affected only by phonological awareness. Regarding numerical tasks that do not contain explicit verbal components, spatial language did not relate to number writing or numerosity comparisons. Conversely, it explained unique variance in symbolic magnitude classifications and was the only predictor of ordinal judgments. These findings thus highlight the importance of spatial language for early numerical development beyond verbal number skills and suggest that the knowledge of spatial terms is especially relevant for processing cardinal and ordinal relations between symbolic numbers. Promoting spatial language in preschool might thus be an interesting avenue for fostering the acquisition of these symbolic numerical skills prior to formal schooling.

Research on human language converges on a view in which a grammatical “subject” is the most saliently encoded entity in mental representation. However, subjecthood is not a syntactically uniform phenomenon. Notably, many languages encode morphological distinctions between subjects of transitive verbs (i.e., verbs that require an object) and subjects of intransitive verbs. We ask how this typological pattern manifests in a language like English (which does not morphologically signal it) by examining the “distinctiveness” of transitive versus intransitive subjects in memory during online sentence processing. We conducted a self-paced reading experiment that tested for “attraction” effects (Dillon et al., Journal of Memory and Language , 69 (2), 85–103, 2013 ; Wagers et al., Journal of Memory and Language , 61 , 206–237, 2009 ) in the processing of subject-verb number agreement. We find that transitive subjects trigger attraction effects, but that these effects are mitigated for in transitive subject attractors (independently of the number of other noun phrases present in the intervening clause). We interpret this as indicating that transitive subjects are less distinctive and therefore less representationally salient than intransitive subjects: This is because a transitive subject must compete with another clause-mate core argument (i.e., a direct object), which draws on resources from the same pool of memory resources. On the other hand, an intransitive subject minimally only competes with a non - core argument (i.e., an oblique noun phrase); this consumes fewer memory resources, leaving the subject to enjoy greater spoils.

We consider approximate Bayesian model choice for model selection problems that involve models whose Fisher information matrices may fail to be invertible along other competing submodels. Such singular models do not obey the regularity conditions underlying the derivation of Schwarz's Bayesian information criterion BIC and the penalty structure in BIC generally does not reflect the frequentist large sample behaviour of the marginal likelihood. Although large sample theory for the marginal likelihood of singular models has been developed recently, the resulting approximations depend on the true parameter value and lead to a paradox of circular reasoning. Guided by examples such as determining the number of components in mixture models, the number of factors in latent factor models or the rank in reduced rank regression, we propose a resolution to this paradox and give a practical extension of BIC for singular model selection problems.

This paper investigates a verbal category called “assistive” in two closely related Turkic languages, Kyrgyz and Kazakh, which appears to have a helping-like interpretation. The assistive construction includes a dative-marked Agent argument, which is not to be introduced by one of the commonly known noncore-argument-introducing heads, Cause, Applicative and Voice. The paper argues that the assistive does not encode a helping event; rather it is a hitherto unidentified type of event pluralizer (pluractional), which can introduce an Agent argument. The paper presents novel data showing that the assistive defines event plurality at the level of subevents: it requires that the embedded event be divided into two subevent sets such that the embedded event is the sum of the two subevent sets and the dative-marked argument is the Agent of one of the subevent sets. Thereby, the paper contributes to the inventory of pluractionals and to the cross-linguistically attested noncore-argument-introducing categories.

Differences between native (L1) and non-native (L2) comprehension have been debated. This study explores whether a source of potential L1/L2 differences lies in susceptibility to memory-based interference during dependency formation. Interference effects are known to occur in sentences like The key to the cabinets were rusty , where ungrammaticality results from a number mismatch between the sentence subject and verb. Such sentences are sometimes misperceived as grammatical due to the presence of a number-matching “distractor” (“the cabinets”). Interference has been well-examined in a number agreement. However, whether and how forming thematic relations is susceptible to interference remains underexplored in L1 and L2 language comprehension. In six preregistered experiments, we investigated semantic interference in language comprehension and explored whether potential L1/L2 differences can be attributed to different degrees of susceptibility to interference. The results did not show that L2 speakers are more susceptible to interference than L1 speakers. Also, the observed interference patterns were only partially consistent with existing theories of memory retrieval during comprehension. We discuss how these theories may be reconciled with our findings and argue our results suggest that similar processes are involved in L1 and L2 subject-verb dependency formation.

Suppletion for case and number in pronominal paradigms shows robust patterns across a large, cross-linguistic survey. These patterns are largely, but not entirely, parallel to patterns described in Bobaljik (2012) for suppletion for adjectival degree. Like adjectival degree suppletion along the dimension positive < comparative < superlative, if some element undergoes suppletion for a category X, that element will also undergo suppletion for any category more marked than X on independently established markedness hierarchies for case and number. We argue that the structural account of adjectival suppletive patterns in Bobaljik (2012) extends to pronominal suppletion, on the assumption that case (Caha 2009) and number (Harbour 2011) hierarchies are structurally encoded. In the course of the investigation, we provide evidence against the common view that suppletion obeys a condition of structural (Bobaljik 2012) and/or linear (Embick 2010) adjacency (cf. Merchant 2015; Moskal and Smith 2016), and argue that the full range of facts requires instead a domain-based approach to locality (cf. Moskal 2015b). In the realm of number, suppletion of pronouns behaves as expected, but a handful of examples for suppletion in nouns show a pattern that is initially unexpected, but which is, however, consistent with the overall view if the Number head is also internally structurally complex. Moreover, variation in suppletive patterns for number converges with independent evidence for variation in the internal complexity and markedness of number across languages.

Based on the cross- and intra-linguistic distribution of Person Case Constraint (PCC) effects, this paper shows that there can be no agreement in ϕ-features (PERSON, NUMBER, GENDER/NOUN-CLASS) which systematically lacks a morpho-phonological footprint. That is, there is no such thing as “abstract” ϕ-agreement, null across the entire paradigm. Applying the same diagnostic to instances of clitic doubling, we see that these do involve syntactic agreement. This cannot be because clitic doubling is agreement; it behaves like movement (and unlike agreement) in a variety of respects. Nor can this be because clitic doubling, qua movement, is contingent on prior agreement—since the claim that all movement depends on prior agreement is demonstrably false. Clitic doubling requires prior agreement because it is an instance of non-local head movement, and movement of X0 to Y0 always requires a prior syntactic relationship between Y0 and XP. In local head movement (the kind that is already permitted under the Head Movement Constraint), this requirement is trivially satisfied by (c-)selection. But in non-local cases, agreement must fill this role.

This paper explores the semantics of bare singulars in Turkish, which are unmarked for number in form, as in English, but can behave like both singular and plural terms, unlike in English. While they behave like singular terms as case-marked arguments, they are interpreted number neutrally in non-case-marked argument positions, the existential copular construction, and the predicate position. Previous accounts (Bliss, in Calgary Papers in Linguistics 25:1–65, 2004; Bale et al. in Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20:1–15, 2010; Görgülü, in: Semantics of nouns and the specification of number in Turkish, Ph.d. thesis, Simon Fraser University, 2012) propose that Turkish bare singulars denote number neutral sets and that morphologically plural marked nouns denote sets of pluralities only. This approach leads to a symmetric correlation of morphological and semantic (un)markedness. However, in this paper, I defend a strict singular view for bare singulars and show that Turkish actually patterns with English where this correlation is exhibited asymmetrically. I claim that bare singulars in Turkish denote atomic properties and that bare plurals have a number neutral semantics as standardly assumed for English. I argue that the apparent number neutrality of bare singulars in the three cases arises via singular kind reference, which I show to extend to the phenomenon called pseudo-incorporation and a construction that I call kind specification. I argue that pseudo-incorporation occurs in non-case-marked argument positions following Öztürk (Case, referentiality, and phrase structure, Amsterdam, Benjamins, Publishing Company, 2005) and the existential copular construction, whereas kind specification is realized in the predicate position. The different behaviors of bare singulars in Turkish and English stem from the fact that singular kind reference is used more extensively in Turkish than in English. Furthermore, while there are well-known asymmetries between singular and plural kind reference cross-linguistically, Turkish manifests a more restricted distribution for bare plurals than English in the positions where pseudo-incorporation and kind specification are in evidence. I explain this as a blocking effect, specific to Turkish, by singular kind terms on plural kind terms.

Numbers express the primary concept of cardinality, the measure of the number of elements in a set that answers the question how many? Linguistically, they are conveyed through simple (dos ‘two’) or complex (doscientos ‘two hundred’). Although numerals higher than 1 are inherently plural, plurality only overtly appears on cien ‘hundred’ and millón ‘million’ and only when the numeral is part of a multiplicative number (doscientas sillas ‘two hundred.f.pl chairs’ vs. additive ciento dos sillas ‘one and hundred two chairs’). The additive vs. multiplicative constraint on overt number is analyzed as follows: complex numerals have a functional head that encodes plurality. This head is potentially realized as an affix that attaches to the root. Since additive numerals involve coordination, the coordinate structure constraint blocks -s from attaching to the root. Multiplicative numerals, on the other hand, allow for -s to attach to the root, since no additional structure blocks attachment. Plurality only appears overtly on cien ‘hundred’ and millón ‘million’ because the morphological insertion rules for plurality in cardinals treats the null plural as default and the -s plural as marked (and restricted to a few roots). Approximative numerals (miles de personas ‘thousands of people’) obligatorily show plural marking and de, instantiating yet another source of number, a functional DIV(ision) head.

This study investigates subject-verb agreement with singular disjuncts coordinated by the complex disjunction sau…sau (‘either…or’) in Romanian, focusing on both monolingual 5-year-old children and adults. While prior research has documented variability in agreement with the simple disjunction sau (‘or’), it remains unclear whether similar patterns extend to sau…sau, typically linked to an exclusive interpretation. To explore the relationship between agreement and interpretation, we conducted two forced-choice tasks: a sentence selection task and a picture selection task. In sentence selection, many adults showed context sensitivity, adjusting agreement morphology based on the number of referents; others applied consistent singular or plural agreement. Children mostly selected agreement patterns matching the number of disjuncts verified by the visual context. This suggests that agreement with complex disjunction is initially context-driven in childhood and remains partly so in adulthood. In the picture selection task, adults showed a strong preference for one-disjunct interpretations, whereas children displayed more variability, consistent with an inclusive interpretation. However, adult comprehension aligns more strongly with exclusivity. Overall, our results indicate that speakers differ in how they connect syntactic agreement to interpretation, and that, while for many, complex disjunctions involve exclusivity, for some, complex disjunctions may be ambiguous between inclusive and exclusive readings.