Advertisement

Reanalysis Aspects of Movements

  • Marica De Vincenzi
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 21)

Abstract

This chapter describes work focusing on the reanalysis of long-distance dependencies, specifically wh-questions, instead of phrase-structure reanalysis. It will show that holding all the above aspects constant, there is still a difference in reanalysis between who and which dependencies. In particular, I will show that reanalyzing a strictly grammatical dependency is more costly than reanalyzing a coindexing relation. This difference will be attributed to the type of linguistic relation that who and which enter into, namely an antecedent government chain (who) and a binding chain (which). The finding has been motivated by experimental data on Italian (cf. De Vincenzi, in press), but it also accounts for some experimental data collected in English (cf. Carlson & Tanenhaus, 1988), therefore showing the cross-linguistic validity of such a difference in reanalysis.

Keywords

Syntactic Structure Subject Position Binding Relation Thematic Role Steel Worker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berwick, R. and Weinberg, A. 1984. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Boland, J., Tanenhaus, M., Garnsey, S., and Carlson, G. 1995. Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 774–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chung, S. 1994. Wh-agreement and `Referentiality’ in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 1–44. Cinque, G. 1992. Types of A ’ Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carlson, G. and Tanenhaus, M. 1988. Thematic roles and language comprehension. In W. Wilkins (ed), Thematic Relations, Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 21. New York, NY: Academic Press, 263–300.Google Scholar
  5. Crain, S. and Fodor, J.D. 1985. How can grammars help parsers? In D. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, and A. Zwicky (eds.), Natural Language Parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 94–128.Google Scholar
  6. Crain, S. and Steedman, M. 1985. On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, and A. Zwicky (eds), Natural Language Parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 320–358.Google Scholar
  7. De Vincenzi, M. 1990. Processing of wh-dependencies in a null-subject language: Referential and non-referential whs. In B. Plunkett (ed.), UMOP 15 Psycholinguistics, 91–118.Google Scholar
  8. De Vincenzi, M. 1991. Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Vincenzi, M. (in press). Syntactic analysis in sentence comprehension: Effects of dependency types and grammatical constraints. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,25, 1, 117–133.Google Scholar
  10. De Vincenzi, M. and Job, R. 1995. An investigation of the Late Closure strategy: The role of syntax, thematic structure and pragmatics in initial and final interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 5, 1303–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enc, M. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1, 1–25.Google Scholar
  12. Engdahl, E. 1980. Wh-constructions in Swedish and the relevance of subjacency. NELS, 10, 89108.Google Scholar
  13. Ferreira, F. and Henderson, J. 1991. Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fodor, J.D. 1979. Superstrategy. In W.E. Cooper and E.C.T. Walker (eds.), Sentence Processing, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Press, 249–280.Google Scholar
  15. Fodor, J.D. 1989. Empty categories in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 155–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fodor, J.D. and Inoue, A. 1994. The diagnosis and cure of garden-paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frazier, L. 1987. Processing Syntactic Structures: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frazier, L. 1994. Sentence (Re-) Analysis. Paper presented at Seventh CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  19. Frazier, L. and Flores D’Arcais, G.B. 1989. Filler-driven parsing: A study of gap-filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frazier, L. and Clifton, C. 1989. Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 2, 93–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frazier, L. and Clifton, C. 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gorrell, P. 1995. Syntax and Parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gorrell, P. (in preparation). The subject-before-object preference in German clauses. Unpublished Manuscript, Max Planck Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience.Google Scholar
  23. Nicol, J.L. 1988. Coreference Processing during Sentence Comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  24. Nicol, J.L. 1993. Reconsidering reactivation. In G. Altmann and P. Shillcock (eds.), Cognitive Models of Speech Processing. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 321–347.Google Scholar
  25. Hickock, G. and Avrutin, S. (in press). Comprehension of wh-questions in two Broca’s aphasics. Brain and Language.Google Scholar
  26. Pesetsky, D. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In A. Ter Meulen and E. Reuland (eds.), Representation of (In)definiteness, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 98–129.Google Scholar
  27. Pickering, M. and Barry, G. 1991. Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pritchett, B. 1988. Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 539–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  30. Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sag, I. and Fodor, J. 1995. Extraction without traces. In R. Aranovich, W. Byrne, S. Preuss, and M. Senturia (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: Stanford Linguistics Association, 365–384.Google Scholar
  32. Schriefers, H., Friederici, A., and Kuhn, K. 1995. The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sekerina, I. 1995. Ambiguity and scrambling in Russian syntactic processing. Poster presented at Eighth CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Tucson, AZ. Also to appear in the proceedings of the Fourth Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, The Cornell Meeting, 1994.Google Scholar
  34. Stowe, L. 1986. Parsing wh-constructions. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Traxier, M.J. and Pickering, M.J. (in press). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language.Google Scholar
  36. Tanenhaus, M., Stowe, L., and Carlson, G. 1985. The interaction of lexical expectation and pragmatics in parsing filler-gap constructions. Proceedings of Seventh Annual Cognitive Science Society Meetings. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 361–365.Google Scholar
  37. Thornton, R. 1995. Referentiality and Wh-movement in Child English: Juvenile D-Linkuency. Language Acquisition, 4, 139–175.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marica De Vincenzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Psychology of the National Research Council (CNR)USA

Personalised recommendations