Abstract
Two important questions in the language sciences have been: What portion of event information is accessed and used during sentence processing? What portion of event information is relevant to the grammar of natural languages? An extensive amount of linguistic and psycholinguistic research over the past couple of decades has shown that quite a bit of event information is relevant to online sentence processing, but only a limited amount of information is relevant to the grammars of natural languages. One possible cause for this divergence is that grammar development and language comprehension are carried out by separate systems that are sensitive to different types of information. Another possible explanation is that grammar development and language comprehension are carried out by an integrated system, but the task demands of language learning and the task demands of language comprehension are different. In this chapter, we show that, grammatical systems that seem more “exotic” from the point of view of more well-known languages still make use of a limited set of properties and that these “exotic” languages still obey the same design constraints as more well-known systems; we then briefly report on some computational models of online reading experiments, which demonstrate quite clearly that a distinct and much larger kind of event knowledge is used by the human parser. We propose an explanation for this difference in the use of event knowledge: Grammars and parsers use different kinds of event knowledge because the tasks listeners and grammar learners must perform are quite distinct.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
McKoon and MacFarland (2000) find corpus examples of verbs normally associated with internal causation appearing in transitive uses, but note of these uses that “if something is said to erode a beach, this cannot be just any something—not a person, not a shovel—it must be something that participates intrinsically in erosion, like wind or water.” This finding furthers the notion that there are links between semantic properties and syntactic properties.
- 2.
The data presented in this chapter comes from a preliminary version of the work reported in Roland et al. (2012).
- 3.
See Goldberg (2006) for the “abstract” meaning of argument-structure constructions and the fact that this meaning corresponds closely to the meaning of “general purpose” verbs like put, give, and so forth.
- 4.
However, if, for example, there were a culture where the color green was associated with that culture’s supreme being, and all actions performed by green-colored agents were thus considered to be special, then we might expect that a separate case marking for green agents could arise.
References
Altmann, G., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.
Bicknell, K., Elman, J. L., Hare, M., McRae, K., & Kutas, M. (2010). Effects of event knowledge in processing verbal arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(4), 489–505.
Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Conklin, K., Koenig, J.-P., & Mauner, G. (2004). The role of specificity in the lexical encoding of participants. Brain & Language, 90, 221–230.
De Hoop, H., & Narashiman, B. (2008). Ergative case-marking in Hindi. In H. deHoop & P. de Swart (Eds.), Differential subject marking (pp. 63–78). Dordrecht: Springer.
Deerwester, S., Dumais, S. T., Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., & Harshman, R. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 391–407.
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.
Evans, N. (2000). Kinship verbs. In P. Vogel & B. Comrie (Eds.), Approaches to the typology of word classes (pp. 103–172). Dordrecht: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. K., & Sag, I. A. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grimshaw, J. (2005). Words and structures. Stanford: CSLI.
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G., & Haywood, S. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 1133–1156.
Koenig, J.-P., & Davis, A. (2001). Sublexical modality and the structure of lexical semantic representations. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24, 71–124.
Koenig, J.-P., Mauner, G., & Bienvenue, B. (2003). Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition, 89, 67–103.
Koenig, J.-P., & Michelson, K. (2010). Argument structure of Oneida kin terms. International Journal of American Linguistics, 76, 169–205.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
McRae, K., Ferretti, T., & Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 137–176.
Malchukov, A. (2008). Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua, 118, 203–221.
Patwardhan, S., & Pederson, T. (2006). Using WordNet-based context vectors to estimate the semantic relatedness of concepts. In Proceedings of the EACL 2006 Workshop Making Sense of Sense—Bringing Computational Linguistics and Psycholinguistics (pp. 1–8). Trento, Italy.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2008). The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44, 129–167.
Roland, D., Yun, H., Koenig, J.-P., & Mauner, G. (2012). Semantic similarity, predictability, and models of sentence processing. Cognition, 122(3), 267–279.
Shakthi, P., & Koenig, J.-P. (2009). Hindi aspectual complex predicates. Proceedings of the HPSG ’09 Conference (pp. 276–296). Stanford: CSLI.
Shakthi, P. (2012). Hindi complex predicates at the syntax-semantics interface. Doctoral Dissertation, University at Buffalo.
Shannon, C. E. (1951). Prediction and entropy of printed English. Bell System Technical Journal, 30, 50–64.
Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227–267.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. E. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.
Yun, H., Mauner, G., & Koenig, J.-P. (2006). Anticipation vs. integration of syntactically infrequent but semantically obligatory arguments. Poster presented at the 19th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, March 23–25, New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koenig, JP., Roland, D., Yun, H., Mauner, G. (2015). Which Event Properties Matter for Which Cognitive Task?. In: de Almeida, R., Manouilidou, C. (eds) Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10112-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10112-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-10111-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-10112-5
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)