Advertisement

Cross-Linguistic Variation in the Processing of Aspect

  • Oliver BottEmail author
  • Fritz Hamm
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 44)

Abstract

The present study investigates the cross-linguistic processing of aspect in English and German. Three self-paced reading experiments provide evidence that coercion of a (simple) past accomplishment into an activity reading causes processing difficulty in English (Experiment 1), but not in German (Experiments 2 and 3). We attribute this cross-linguistic difference to immediate aspectual specification in English, whereas we find delayed aspectual specification in German.

Keywords

Grammatical aspect Aspectual coercion Non-monotonic inference English German 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, Barbara Hemforth, and Barbara Schmiedtová as well as two anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft; furthermore Janina Radó for valuable suggestions on many issues of the present research and for her help in constructing the English experimental materials. We would also like to thank the audience at the AMLaP 2009 conference in Barcelona where this work was presented. The research was made possible by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to projects C1 of the SFB 441 (“Linguistic data structures”) and B1 of the SFB 833 (“The construction of meaning”) at the University of Tübingen. Last but not least, we would like to thank Stig Oppedal for proof reading the final version of the paper.

References

  1. Anderson, S. E., Matlock, T., Fausey, C. M., & Spivey, M. J. (2008). On the path to understanding the on-line processing of grammatical aspect. In Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the cognitive science society, Washington, DC (pp. 2253–2258).Google Scholar
  2. Baggio, G., & van Lambalgen, M. (2007). The processing consequences of the imperfective paradox. Journal of Semantics, 24, 307–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baggio, G., van Lambalgen, M., & Hagoort, P. (2008). Computing and recomputing discourse models: An erp study. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(1), 36–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behrens, B., Schmiedtová, B., Hemforth, B., & Fabricius-Hansen, C. (2014). Understanding coordinate clauses: A cross-linguistic experimental approach. In B. Hemforth, B. Schmiedtová, & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.). Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages (Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics, pp. 23–51). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Bott, O. (2008). Doing it again and again may be difficult – but it depends on what you are doing. In Proceedings of the 27th west coast conference on formal linguistics, Los Angeles, CA. Los Angeles: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
  6. Bott, O. (2010). The processing of events (Volume 162 of linguistics today). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  7. Bott, O. (2013). The processing domain of aspectual interpretation. In B. Arsenijevic, B. Gehrke, & R. Marín (Eds.), Subatomic semantics of event predicates (Studies in linguistics and philosophy). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Brennan, J., & Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Processing events: Behavioral and neuromagnetic correlates of aspectual coercion. Brain & Language, 106, 132–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dahl, O. (1985). Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Dahl, O. (2000). Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferretti, T. R., Kutas, M., & McRae, K. (2007). Verb aspect and the activation of event knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(1), 182–196.Google Scholar
  13. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamm, F., Kamp, H., & van Lambalgen, M. (2006). There is no opposition between formal and cognitive semantics. Theoretical Linguistics, 32, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jäger, F. T. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from anovas (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language. (Special issue on Emerging Data Analysis), 59, 434–446.Google Scholar
  16. Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Klein, W. (2009). How time is encoded. In W. Klein & P. Li (Eds.), The expression of time (pp. 39–82). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Madden, C. J., & Ferretti, T. R. (2009). Verb aspect and the mental representation of situations. In W. Klein & P. Li (Eds.), The expression of time (pp. 217–240). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Madden, C., & Zwaan, R. (2003). How does verb aspect constrain event representations? Memory & Cognition, 31(5), 663–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moens, M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2), 15–28.Google Scholar
  21. Pickering, M., McElree, B., Frisson, S., Chen, L., & Traxler, M. (2006). Underspecification and coercion. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 131–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Mismatching meanings in brain and behavior. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4), 712–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pylkkänen, L., & McElree, B. (2006). The syntax-semantics interface: On-line composition of sentence meaning. In M. J. Traxler, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 537–577). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, C. (1997). The parameter of aspect (Studies in linguistics and philosophy, 2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. Staub, A., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (2006). Heavy NP shift is the parser’s last resort: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van Lambalgen, M., & Hamm, F. (2005). The proper treatment of events. Malden: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66(2), 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. von Stutterheim, C., Carroll, M., & Klein, W. (2009). New perspectives in analyzing aspectual distinctions across languages. In W. Klein & P. Li (Eds.), The expression of time (pp. 195–216). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  30. von Stutterheim, C., Andermann, M., Carroll, M., Flecken, M., & Schmiedtová, B. (2012). How grammaticized concepts shape event conceptualization in language production: Insights from linguistic analysis, eye tracking data, and memory performance. Linguistics, 50(4), 833–867.Google Scholar
  31. Wasow, T. (1997). End-weight from the speaker’s perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(3), 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Seminar für SprachwissenschaftUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations