@inproceedings{kong-hsu-2022-alienable,
title = "(In)Alienable Possession in {M}andarin Relative Clauses",
author = "Kong, Deran and
Hsu, Yu-Yin",
editor = "Zock, Michael and
Chersoni, Emmanuele and
Hsu, Yu-Yin and
Santus, Enrico",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of the Lexicon",
month = nov,
year = "2022",
address = "Taipei, Taiwan",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2022.cogalex-1.2",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2022.cogalex-1.2",
pages = "16--24",
abstract = "Inalienable possession differs from alienable possession in that, in the former {--} e.g., kinships and part-whole relations {--} there is an intrinsic semantic dependency between the possessor and possessum. This paper reports two studies that used acceptability-judgment tasks to investigate whether native Mandarin speakers experienced different levels of interpretational costs while resolving different types of possessive relations, i.e., inalienable possessions (kinship terms and body parts) and alienable ones, expressed within relative clauses. The results show that sentences received higher acceptability ratings when body parts were the possessum as compared to sentences with alienable possessum, indicating that the inherent semantic dependency facilitates the resolution. However, inalienable kinship terms received the lowest acceptability ratings. We argue that this was because the kinship terms, which had the [+human] feature and appeared at the beginning of the experimental sentences, tended to be interpreted as the subject in shallow processing; these features contradicted the semantic-syntactic requirements of the experimental sentences.",
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="kong-hsu-2022-alienable">
<titleInfo>
<title>(In)Alienable Possession in Mandarin Relative Clauses</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Deran</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Kong</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yu-Yin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Hsu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2022-11</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of the Lexicon</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Michael</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Zock</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Emmanuele</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Chersoni</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yu-Yin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Hsu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Enrico</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Santus</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Taipei, Taiwan</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Inalienable possession differs from alienable possession in that, in the former – e.g., kinships and part-whole relations – there is an intrinsic semantic dependency between the possessor and possessum. This paper reports two studies that used acceptability-judgment tasks to investigate whether native Mandarin speakers experienced different levels of interpretational costs while resolving different types of possessive relations, i.e., inalienable possessions (kinship terms and body parts) and alienable ones, expressed within relative clauses. The results show that sentences received higher acceptability ratings when body parts were the possessum as compared to sentences with alienable possessum, indicating that the inherent semantic dependency facilitates the resolution. However, inalienable kinship terms received the lowest acceptability ratings. We argue that this was because the kinship terms, which had the [+human] feature and appeared at the beginning of the experimental sentences, tended to be interpreted as the subject in shallow processing; these features contradicted the semantic-syntactic requirements of the experimental sentences.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">kong-hsu-2022-alienable</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.18653/v1/2022.cogalex-1.2</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2022.cogalex-1.2</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2022-11</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>16</start>
<end>24</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T (In)Alienable Possession in Mandarin Relative Clauses
%A Kong, Deran
%A Hsu, Yu-Yin
%Y Zock, Michael
%Y Chersoni, Emmanuele
%Y Hsu, Yu-Yin
%Y Santus, Enrico
%S Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of the Lexicon
%D 2022
%8 November
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Taipei, Taiwan
%F kong-hsu-2022-alienable
%X Inalienable possession differs from alienable possession in that, in the former – e.g., kinships and part-whole relations – there is an intrinsic semantic dependency between the possessor and possessum. This paper reports two studies that used acceptability-judgment tasks to investigate whether native Mandarin speakers experienced different levels of interpretational costs while resolving different types of possessive relations, i.e., inalienable possessions (kinship terms and body parts) and alienable ones, expressed within relative clauses. The results show that sentences received higher acceptability ratings when body parts were the possessum as compared to sentences with alienable possessum, indicating that the inherent semantic dependency facilitates the resolution. However, inalienable kinship terms received the lowest acceptability ratings. We argue that this was because the kinship terms, which had the [+human] feature and appeared at the beginning of the experimental sentences, tended to be interpreted as the subject in shallow processing; these features contradicted the semantic-syntactic requirements of the experimental sentences.
%R 10.18653/v1/2022.cogalex-1.2
%U https://aclanthology.org/2022.cogalex-1.2
%U https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.cogalex-1.2
%P 16-24
Markdown (Informal)
[(In)Alienable Possession in Mandarin Relative Clauses](https://aclanthology.org/2022.cogalex-1.2) (Kong & Hsu, CogALex 2022)
ACL