Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Case, Word Order and Prominence pp 173–186Cite as

The Impact of Case and Prosody on the Availability of Argument Structures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics ((SITP,volume 40))

Abstract

German sentences with the subcategorizing verb in the final position are locally underspecified with respect to argument structure. The aim of the study reported here was to ascertain the influence of argument-specific and prosodic information on the availability of alternative argument structures. To achieve this goal, the processing of single vs. double object structures was investigated in two experiments. Materials consisted of sentence fragments beginning with a subject followed by an auxiliary and an object that was either marked for the dative or accusative case. Moreover, sentence fragments differed by means of prosody, being either cut out of a single or double object sentence. In Experiment 1, these sentence fragments were presented for completion by a second object and a ditransitive verb (cross-modal completion), whereas in Experiment 2, subjects had to name a case-congruent monotransitive verb after the offset of the fragment (cross-modal naming). Error rates (Experiment 1) and articulation latencies (Experiment 2) revealed an effect of case but no effect of prosody. We conclude that case has a strong impact on argument structure availability and that prosodic differences may be too subtle to influence performance in these tasks. Consequences for models of incremental sentence comprehension are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Altmann, G.T.M., and Y. Kamide. 1999. Incremental interpretation of verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73: 247–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bader, M., and I. Lasser. 1994. German verb-final clauses and sentence processing: Evidence for immediate attachment. In Perspectives on sentence processing, ed. C. Clifton, L. Frazier, and K. Rayner, 225–242. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2006. The extended Argument Dependency Model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 113: 787–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, M.W., and T. Brants. 2000. Wide-coverage probabilistic sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 647–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti, T., K. McRae, and A. Hatherell. 2001. Integrating verbs, situation schemes, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language 44: 516–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. 1987. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In The psychology of reading, ed. M. Coltheart, 559–586. Hove: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A.D. 1995. The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language 50: 259–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A.D., and S. Frisch. 2000. Verb argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information. Journal of Memory and Language 43: 476–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, S., and M. Schlesewsky. 2001. The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport 12: 3391–3394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68: 1–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosjean, F. 1983. How long is the sentence? Prediction and prosody in the on-line processing of language. Linguistics 21: 501–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosjean, F., and C. Hirt. 1996. Using prosody to predict the end of sentences in English and French: Normal and brain-damaged subjects. Language and Cognitive Processes 11: 107–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, J. 2006. Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30: 609–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurafsky, D.S. 1996. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20: 137–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamide, Y., G.T.M. Altmann, and S.L. Haywood. 2003. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49: 133–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konieczny, L., and P. Döring. 2003. Anticipation of clause-final heads. Evidence from eye-tracking and SRNs. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Cognitive Science ed. P.P. Slezak, 330–335. Sydney: University of New South Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapata, M., F. Keller, and S. Schulte im Walde. 2001. Verb frame frequency as a predictor of verb bias. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30: 419–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, R. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106: 1126–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lingel, S., S. Pappert, and T. Pechmann. 2006. The prosody of German pp-attachment ambiguities: Evidence from production and perception. In Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M.C., N.J. Pearlmutter, and M.S. Seidenberg. 1994. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101: 676–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W.D., L.K. Tyler, P. Warren, P. Grenier, and C.S. Lee. 1992. Prosodic effects in minimal attachment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 45A: 73–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • McRae, K., M.J. Spivey-Knowlton, and M.K. Tanenhaus. 1998. Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 38: 283–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muckel, S. 2002. Wortstellungseffekte beim Satzverstehen: Zur Rolle syntaktischer, verbspezifischer und prosodischer Informationen. Wiesbaden: DUV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakatani, K., and E. Gibson. 2008. Distinguishing theories of syntactic expectation cost in sentence comprehension: Evidence from Japanese. Linguistics 46: 63–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pappert, S., J. Schließer, T. Pechmann, and D.P. Janssen. 2005. Availability of subcategorization frames: A matter of syntactic or lexical frequency? In Proceedings of the Verb Workshop 2005, Saarbrücken, ed. K. Erk, A. Melinger and S. Schulte im Walde, 98–102. Saarbrücken: Saarland Univ..

    Google Scholar 

  • Pappert, S., J. Schließer, D.P. Janssen, and T. Pechmann. 2007. Corpus- and psycholinguistic investigations of linguistic constraints on German object order. In Interfaces and interface conditions, ed. A. Späth, 299–328. Berlin: DeGruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pappert, S., J. Schließer, and T. Pechmann. 2008. Effects of local context on argument number and verb type expectations. In The discourse potential of underspecified structures: Event structures and information structures, ed. A. Steube. Berlin: DeGruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rösler, F., T. Pechmann, J. Streb, B. Röder, and E. Hennighausen. 1998. Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 38: 150–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheepers, C., and M.M.B. Corley. 2000. Syntactic priming in German sentence production. In Proceedings of the twenty-second meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. L.R. Gleitman and A.K. Joshi, 435–440. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheepers, C., B. Hemforth, and L. Konieczny. 1999. Incremental processing of verb-final ­constructions: Predicting the verb’s minimum (!) valency. Talk presented at the International Conference on Cognitive Science, Tokyo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheepers, C., B. Hemforth, L. Konieczny, and R.P.G. van Gompel. (in prepration). Monotonicity in head-final sentence processing: Top-down prediction of verb valency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, L.K., and W.D. Marslen-Wilson. 1977. The on-line effects of semantic context on syntactic processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16: 683–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, P., E. Grabe, and F. Nolan. 1995. Prosody, phonology, and parsing in closure ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 457–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, A., M. Grice, and M.W. Crocker. 2006. The role of prosody in the interpretation of structural ambiguities: A study of anticipatory eye movements. Cognition 99: B63–B72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work presented here was supported by a grant by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsglemeinschaft). The authors thank Oliver Schweickart for assistance in the preparation and realization of the experiments, Marc Richards for checking the English and three anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier version of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Sandra Pappert & Thomas Pechmann

Authors
  1. Sandra Pappert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Pechmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Pappert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Language & Communication, Vrij Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, Netherlands

    Monique Lamers

  2. , Center for Language & Cognition, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Oude Kijk in 'tJatstraat 26, Groningen, 9712 EK, Netherlands

    Peter de Swart

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pappert, S., Pechmann, T. (2012). The Impact of Case and Prosody on the Availability of Argument Structures. In: Lamers, M., de Swart, P. (eds) Case, Word Order and Prominence. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 40. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation