I study the grammar of conversational speech, using databases of spoken English made available through ²¹²Ô»åÌý³Ù³ó±ðÌýÌý(LDC). I explore the use conditions associated with grammatical constructions and intonation patterns—a research area often referred to asÌýdiscourse pragmatics. My research in discourse pragmatics focuses on the prosodic and grammatical expression of the pragmatic rolesÌýtopicÌý²¹²Ô»åÌý´Ú´Ç³¦³Ü²õ, and on what grammatical mechanisms people use to do conversational work like expressing an emotional reaction to something, introducing a new topic into the conversation, announcing forthcoming propositional content and assessing what has been said before. This work is a collaborative effort withÌýseveral current and former CU students, includingÌýÌý(on the nonstandardÌý) andÌýÌý(´Ç²ÔÌý). For findings of an NSF-sponsored project on conversational reference on which Hartwell and I worked, see theÌýÌýsite. In recent work with CU post-doctoral student Jill Duffield, we are exploring explanations for the prevalence of subject relative-clauses in English conversation. We are investigating the claim that the subject relative-clause (as represented by the bracketed portion ofÌýcarsÌý°Úthat are designed with human beings in mind])Ìýis as common as it is not because of general-purpose interpretive or production constaints but because it isÌýpart of an entrenched discourse routine, the presentational relative-clause construction (e.g.,ÌýThere are a lot of people who babysit in their homes). Recently, Jill and I have begun a series of experiments that we hope will validate a processing-based explanation (ambiguity avoidance) for one of the most enduring 'purely syntactic' constraints--the so-called (which we refer to, following Postal 2004,Ìýas the anti-complementizer effect, or ACE). ACE names theÌýnegative judgment that language users make about a certain kind ofÌýlong-distanceÌýdependency—thoseÌýin which a subject is instantiatiated in the pre-clausal filler position and the complementizer that appears before the 'gapped' argument, as in,Ìýe.g., the wh-question *Who did she believe that left? or the relative clause *the person we believed that was hired. A fact that we think will help us to explain the nature of ACE is this:Ìýthe sentence Who did she believe that left? has an unwelcome reading, in which it asks 'Who among the people that left did she believe?'. We also think it is significant that 'violations' like the following are fine: What did she say that was a lie? Why? We believe that our psycholinguistic research program will provide some intuitively satsifyingÌýanswers.Ìý

Ìý