Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 277–286 | Cite as

Processing of Japanese Cleft Constructions in Context: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials



Numerous studies have found “subject gap preference” in relative clauses and cleft constructions in English, French, and other languages. In contrast, previous studies have reported “object gap preference” in cleft constructions in Japanese. However, the effect of integrating a filler and its gap may be influenced by the effect of transitional probabilities, so previous studies confounded these two factors. This study explores processing asymmetries in Japanese cleft constructions by conducting an event-related brain potential experiment by controlling transitional probabilities. The results demonstrate that the subject gap preference in Japanese is well aligned with that observed in other languages, suggesting that subject gap preference is a universal aspect of language comprehension.


Japanese Sentence comprehension Cleft constructions Gap-filler dependency Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) 



This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (\(\#25\!{\varvec{\cdot }}\!4854\), PI: Masataka Yano) and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) (\(\#25244018\), PI: Tsutomu Sakamoto) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. We are grateful to anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. We also would like to thank Maiko Yano and Kojin Kuwahara for assistance with data collection and analysis.


  1. Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Syntactic working memory and the establishment of filler-gap dependencies: Insights from ERPs and fMRI. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(3), 321–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 1411–1423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, M. (1959). On methods in the analyses of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hiraiwa, K., & Ishihara, S. (2012). Syntactic metamorphosis: Clefts, slicing, and in-situ focus in Japanese. Syntax, 15(2), 142–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ishizuka, T., Nakatani, K., Gibson, E. (2006). Processing Japanese relative clause in context. Paper presented at the 19th annual CUNY conference on Human Sentence Processing, CUNY.Google Scholar
  9. Jasper, H. H. (1958). The ten twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 10, 371–375.Google Scholar
  10. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processess, 15(2), 159–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahraman, B., Sato, A., Ono, H., Sakai, H. (2011a) Incremental processing of gap-filler dependencies: Evidence from the processing of subject and object clefts in Japanese. The Proceeding of the Twelfth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 113–147.Google Scholar
  12. Kahraman, B., Sato, A., Ono, H., & Sakai, H. (2011b). Why object clefts are easier to process than subject clefts in Japanese: Frequency or expectation? Technical Report of IECIE, 111(170), 67–72.Google Scholar
  13. Miyamoto, E. T., & Nakamura, M. (2003). Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds.), Proceedings of 22nd West Coast conference on formal linguistic (pp. 342–355). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  14. O’Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Oldfield, R. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abada, S. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(3), 407–428.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Thompson, S. P., & Newport, E. L. (2007). Statistical learning of syntax: The role of transitional probability. Language Learning and Development, 3(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ueno, M., & Garnsey, S. M. (2008). An ERP study of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Process, 23(5), 646–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masataka Yano
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yuki Tateyama
    • 1
  • Tsutomu Sakamoto
    • 3
  1. 1.Graduate School of HumanitiesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  2. 2.Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Faculty of HumanitiesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations