Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Eye Movements Can and Cannot Tell Us About Wh-Movement and Scrambling

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Grammatical Approaches to Language Processing

Part of the book series: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics ((SITP,volume 48))

Abstract

Generative grammar postulates a filler-gap dependency in Wh-questions. Visual World Paradigm (VWP) studies of this dependency in English have found an increase in fixations to the filler object during and after the verb which was interpreted as filler reactivation (Trace Reactivation Hypothesis) at the gap and explained by the Active Filler Hypothesis. However, it is possible that such fixations are compatible not only with filler-gap processing, but also with a goal-oriented strategy, i.e., the pragmatic computation of an answer to the question. To disentangle these two possible explanations, we conducted two VWP experiments that investigated comprehension of simple Russian Wh-questions in which the type of question (subject vs. object) was crossed with scrambling (object-verb vs. verb-subject). For object scrambling, there was no evidence of reactivation of the scrambled filler; for subject scrambling, there was a brief consideration of the scrambled filler, but not at the gap site. Instead, the referent that was the answer to the question was fixated. For object Wh-questions, the eye-movement pattern was inconclusive, as it was consistent with both filler-gap and goal-oriented processing. We suggest that the latter strategy of looking for an answer in the visual context may account for eye-movements in all types of Wh-movement: when participants answer a question, they prioritize computing the answer (and visually verifying it) over computing filler-gap dependencies.

The original version of this chapter was revised: Incorrect co-author name has been corrected. The correction to this chapter is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01563-3_17

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Change history

  • 16 March 2019

    In Chapter “Challenges of Real-Scale Production with Smart Dynamic Casting”, low-resolution Figure 4 is replaced with high resolution, Figure 5 is replaced with new figure and Figure 6 and the graph near are positioned as per the standard.

Notes

  1. 1.

    We are showing the subject wh-word—t2 dependency in (4) for clarity, but it is well-established.

  2. 2.

    See footnote 1.

  3. 3.

    We are showing the second potential reverse gap-filler dependency in (8), i.e., t2—the postponed subject мальчик2, but its existence is debatable and warrants a separate investigation.

  4. 4.

    On Monday a boy and girl walked past the teacher. Suddenly, the boy1 pushed the girl2, which surprised the teacher3. He told both to leave the school4. Nobody realized

    (a) whoACC2 the boy on Monday pushed t2. (referent: girlACC)

    (b) whoACC3 the boy on Monday surprised t3. (referent: teacherACC).

References

  • Bailyn, J. F. (2004). Generalized inversion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22, 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailyn, J. F. (2012). The syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing ‘visual world’ eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 457–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bošković, Ž., & Takahashi, D. (1998). Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 347–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clahsen, H., & Featherston, S. (1999). Antecedent priming at trace positions: Evidence from German scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(4), 415–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vincenzi, M. (1991). Filler-gap dependencies in a null-subject language: Referential and non-referential Whs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(3), 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickey, M. W., Choy, J. J., & Thompson, C. K. (2007). Real-time comprehension of Wh-movement in aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking while listening. Brain and Language, 100(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickey, M. W., & Thompson, C. K. (2009). Automatic processing of Wh- and NP-movement in agrammatic aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(6), 563–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (1995). Comprehending sentence structure. In L. R. Gleitman & M. Liberman (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science, Volume I: Language (pp. 209–246). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (2013). Syntax in sentence processing. In R. P. G. Van Gompel (Ed.), Sentence processing (pp. 21–50). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(2), 93–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karimi, S. (Ed.). (2003). Word order and scrambling. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoeferle, P., & Guerra, E. (2016). Visually situated language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(2), 66–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lüdecke, D. (2017). sjPlot: Data visualization for statistics in social science. R package version 2.3.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot.

  • Lyashevskaya, O. N., & Sharov, S. A. (2009). Chastotnyj Slovar’ Sovremennogo Russkogo Jazyka (na Materialakh Natsional’nogo Korpusa Russkogo Jazyka. (in Russian) [‘Frequency Dictionary of Modern Russian (based on the materials of the Russian National Corpus)’]. Moscow: Azbukovnik.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marinis, T. (2018). Cross-modal priming in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(3), 456–461. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000761.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matin, E., Shao, K. C., & Boff, K. R. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information-processing time with and without saccades. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 53(4), 372–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakano, Y., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2002). Antecedent priming at trace positions in Japanese distance scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(5), 531–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/.

  • Salverda, A. P., Brown, M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2011). A goal-based perspective on eye movements in visual world studies. Acta Psychologica, 137, 172–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekerina, I. A. (2003). Scrambling and processing: Dependencies, complexity, and constraints. In S. Karimi (Ed.), Word order and scrambling (pp. 301–324). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sussman, R. S., & Sedivy, J. C. (2003). The time-course of processing syntactic dependencies: Evidence from eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(2), 143–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinney, D., Ford, M., Frauenfelder, U., & Bresnan, J. (1988). Coreference assignment during sentence processing. In B. Grosz, R. Kaplan, M. Macken, & I. Sag (Eds.), Language structure and processing. Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titov, E. (2017). The canonical order of Russian objects. Linguistic Inquiry, 48(3), 427–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (Eds.). (2004). Approaches to studying word-situated language use. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Koot, H., Silva, R., Felser, C., & Sato, M. (2015). Does Dutch A-scrambling involve movement? Evidence from antecedent priming. The Linguistic Review, 32(4), 739–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Anastasia Ulicheva, Maria Ivanova, and Svetlana Kuptsova for their help with planning and conducting the experiment, and Jill Jegerski for providing very useful comments on the chapter. We are especially thankful to our colleagues Janet Dean Fodor, Katy Carlson, and Michael Walsh Dickey whose very thoughtful comments have substantially improved both the content and style of this chapter. The study has been funded by several PSC-CUNY grants to Irina A. Sekerina and by the Center for Language and Brain NRU Higher School of Economics, RF Government grant, ag. No. 14.641.31.0004, to Anna Laurinavichyute and Olga Dragoy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The College of Staten Island and the Graduate Center, CUNY, New York City, USA

    Irina A. Sekerina

  2. National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation

    Anna K. Laurinavichyute & Olga Dragoy

  3. University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

    Anna K. Laurinavichyute

Authors
  1. Irina A. Sekerina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna K. Laurinavichyute
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olga Dragoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irina A. Sekerina .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, Morehead State University, Morehead, KY, USA

    Katy Carlson

  2. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA

    Charles Clifton, Jr.

  3. Linguistics Program, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York City, NY, USA

    Janet Dean Fodor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sekerina, I.A., Laurinavichyute, A.K., Dragoy, O. (2019). What Eye Movements Can and Cannot Tell Us About Wh-Movement and Scrambling. In: Carlson, K., Clifton, Jr., C., Fodor, J. (eds) Grammatical Approaches to Language Processing. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 48. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01563-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01563-3_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01562-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01563-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation