Does Structural Complexity Necessarily Imply Processing Difficulty?
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Our goal is to establish a link between the time needed to plan a sentence containing an embedded clause and the structure of this sentence. Contrary to a traditional monolithic conception of subordination, three types of embeddings were considered, depending on their degree of syntactic integration: subcategorized, modifier and pseudo-embedded clauses. We hypothesized that in the case of subcategorization, fewer pauses should occur between the matrix and the subordinate clause since the latter is required by the lexical properties of verbs. By contrast, pseudo-embedded clauses are the less integrated. Hence, they should exhibit planning characteristics similar to the ones of simple sentences, the matrix clause and the subordinate clauses being planned in two steps. Twenty texts produced by French speaking adults were recorded. Pauses were characterized according to their duration and position. Globally, both predictions were confirmed. We conclude that supposedly complex sentences are not necessarily difficult to process.
- Beaman K. (1984). Coordination and subordination revisited: syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In: D. Tannen (eds) Coherence in spoken and written discourse. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 45–80
- Blake J., Austin W., Cannon M., Lisus A., Vaughan A. (1994). The relationship between memory span and measures of imitative and spontaneous language complexity in preschool children. International Journal of Behaviour Development 17(1):91–107
- Caplan D., Alpert N., Waters G. (1998). Effects of syntactic structure and propositional number on patterns of regional cerebral blood flow. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(4):541–552 CrossRef
- Chafe W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In: D. Tannen (eds) Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 35–53
- Creissels, D. (2006). Syntaxe générale : une introduction typologique, Paris: Hermès (to appear).
- Fodor J.-A., Garrett M. (1967). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception and Psychophysics 2, 289–296
- Ford M. (1983). A method of obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 22, 203–218 CrossRef
- Ford M., Holmes V.M. (1978). Planning units and syntax in sentence production. Cognition 6, 35–53 CrossRef
- Frazier L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In: Dowty D., Karttunen L., Zwicky A. (eds) Natural language parsing. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press pp. 129–189
- Gibson E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68, 1–76 CrossRef
- Gibson, E., & Thomas, J. (1996). The processing complexity of English center-embedded and selfembedded structures. In C. Schutze (Ed.), Proceedings of the NELS 26 workshop on language processing: MIT working papers in linguistics (pp. 45–71). Cambridge: MA.
- Goldman-Eisler F. (1972). Pauses, clauses, sentences. Language and Speech 15, 103–113
- Halliday M.A.K. (1985). Spoken and written language. Oxford, Oxford University Press
- Hawkins P.R. (1971). The syntactic location of hesitation pauses. Language and Speech 14, 277–288
- Holmes, V. M. (1995). A crosslinguistic comparison of the production of utterances in discourse. Cognition, 169–207.
- Jurafsky D., Martin J.H. (2000). Speech and language processing An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. New Jersey, Prentice Hall
- Just M.A., Carpenter P.A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 99(1):122–149 CrossRef
- Just M.-A., Carpenter P.-A., Keller T.-A., Eddy W.-F., Thulborn K.-R. (1996). Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science 274, 114–116 CrossRef
- Kaan E., Harris A., Gibson E., Holcomb P.-J. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 15(2):159–201 CrossRef
- King J., Just M.A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: the role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 2, 580–602 CrossRef
- Koch, P. (1995). Subordination, intégration syntaxique et “oralité”. Études romanes, 13–42.
- Kroll, B. (1977). Combining ideas in written and spoken English: A look at subordination and coordination. In E. Keenan & T. Bennett (Eds.), Discourse across time and space (pp. 69–108). Los Angeles, University of Southern California: Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics.
- Maclay H., Osgood C.E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word 15, 19–44
- O’Donnell R.C. (1974). Syntactic difference between speech and writing. American Speech 49, 102–110 CrossRef
- Poole M.E., Field T.W. (1976). A comparison of oral and written code elaboration. Language and Speech 19, 305–311
- Stromswold K., Caplan D., Alpert N., Rauch S. (1996). Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography. Brain and Language 52(3):452–73 CrossRef
- Does Structural Complexity Necessarily Imply Processing Difficulty?
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
Volume 37, Issue 1 , pp 21-31
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links