Abstract
Previous research has shown that in fully grammatical sentences, response time increases and acceptability decreases when the filler in a long-distance extraction is incompatible with the matrix verb. This effect could potentially be due to a difference between argument and adjunct extraction. In this paper we investigate the effect of long extraction of arguments and adjuncts where incompatibility is kept constant. Based on the results from two offline surveys and an online experiment, we argue that the argument/adjunct asymmetry in terms of acceptability is due to differences in processing difficulty, but that both types of extraction involve the same intermediate attachment sites in the online processing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-42. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
Chen, E., Gibson, E., & Wolf, F. (2005). Online syntactic storage costs in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 144–169.
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232–286). Rinehart: Holt.
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow, & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71–132). New York: Academic Press.
Christensen, K. R., Kizach, J., & Nyvad, A. M. (2013a). Escape from the island: Grammaticality and (reduced) acceptability of wh-island violations in Danish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(1), 51–70.
Christensen, K. R., Kizach, J., & Nyvad, A. M. (2013b). The processing of syntactic islands—An fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26(2), 239–251.
Chung, S. (1994). WH-agreement and “referentiality” in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 1–44.
Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A’ dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Diderichsen, P. (1962). Elementær Dansk grammatik. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.
Fanselow, G., & Frisch, S. (2006). Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In G. Fanselow, C. Fery, & M. Schlesewsky (Eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives (pp. 291–316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 427–473.
Fodor, J. D. (1989). Empty categories in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 155–209.
Forster, K. I., Guerrera, C., & Elliot, L. (2009). The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computer, 41, 163–171.
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX. A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computer, 35, 116–124.
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). East Sussex, U.K.: Erlbaum.
Frazier, L., Clifton, C., & Randall, J. (1983). Filling gaps: Decision principles and structure in sentence comprehension. Cognition, 13, 187–222.
Garnsey, S. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chapman, R. M. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 51–60.
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gibson, E., & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7(1), 55–78.
Hawkins, J. A. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language, 75(2), 244–285.
Hofmeister, P. (2007). Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
Hofmeister, P., & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86, 366–415.
Huang, C. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Hukari, T. E., & Levine, R. D. (1995). Adjunct extraction. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 195–226.
King, J., & Just, M. (1991). Who did what and when? Using word- and clausal-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376–395.
Kizach, J., Nyvad, A. M., & Christensen, K. R. (2013). Structure before meaning: Sentence processing, plausibility, and subcategorization. PLoS ONE, 8.10, e76326.
Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196–214.
McCloskey, J. (1979). Transformational syntax and model-theoretic semantics: A case study in Modern Irish. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. A. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–19.
Pickering, M. J. (1993). Direct association and sentence processing: A reply to Gorrell and to Gibson and Hickok. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 163–196.
Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2003). Evidence against the use of subcategorisation frequency in the processing of unbounded dependencies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 469–503.
Poole, G. (2011). Syntactic theory (2nd ed.). Houndmills: MacMillan.
R Development Core Team. (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sprouse, J. (2008). The differential sensitivity of acceptability judgments to processing effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(4), 686–694.
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1(3), 227–245.
Swinney, D., Ford, M., Frauenfelder, U., & Bresnan, J. (1988). On the temporal course of gap-filling and antecedent assignment during sentence comprehension. In B. Grosz, R. Kaplan, M. Macken, & I. Sag (Eds.), Language structure and processing. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Szabolcsi, A. (2006). Strong and weak islands. In M. Everaert, H. van Riemsdijk, R. Goedemans, & B. Hollebrandse (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp. 479–532). London: Blackwell.
Torrego, E. (1984). On Inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 103–130.
Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. L. (2006). Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and anti-locality effects. Language, 82, 767–794.
Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In N. M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 119–161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Witzel, N., Witzel, J., & Forster, K. (2012). Comparisons of online reading paradigms: Eye tracking, moving-window, and maze. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 105–128.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Experimental stimuli
Long argument movement | |
|---|---|
Hvilket træ har bestyrelsen vedtaget, at gartneren skal beskære kraftigt? | Which tree has board.the decided that gardener.the must prune rigorously |
Hvilken bjergkæde har regeringen tilladt, at forskerne må kortlægge detaljeret? | Which mountain.range has government.the allowed that scientist.the can map detailed |
Hvilket sprog har læreren sværget, at eleverne ville tale flydende? | Which language has teacher.the sworn that students.the would speak fluently |
Hvilke børn har moderen besluttet, at pædagogerne skulle opdrage strengt? | Which children has mother.the decided that educators.the had.to raise strictly |
Hvilken båd har naboen påstået, at præsten ville sælge billigt? | Which boat has neighbor.the claimed that priest.the would sell cheaply |
Hvilke aktier har børsmæglerne fortalt, at investorerne ville købe dyrt? | Which stocks have brokers.the told that investors.the would buy expensively |
Hvilke udgifter har journalisten hørt, at ledelsen ville nedskære drastisk? | Which expenses has journalist.the heard that management.the would cut.down drastically |
Hvilken reol har kunden indrømmet, at flyttemanden skulle transportere langt? | Which book.case has customer.the admitted that mover.the had.to transport long |
Long adjunct movement | |
|---|---|
Hvor kraftigt har bestyrelsen vedtaget, at gartneren skal beskære træet? | How rigorously has board.the decided that gardener.the must prune tree.the |
Hvor detaljeret har regeringen tilladt, at forskerne må kortlægge bjergkæden? | How detailed has government.the allowed that scientist.the can map mountain range.the |
Hvor flydende har læreren sværget, at eleverne ville tale engelsk? | How fluently has teacher.the sworn that students.the would speak English |
Hvor strengt har moderen besluttet, at pædagogerne skulle opdrage børnene? | How strictly has mother.the decided that educators.the had.to raise children.the |
Hvor billigt har naboen påstået, at præsten ville sælge båden? | How cheaply has neighbor.the claimed that priest.the would sell boat.the |
Hvor dyrt har børsmæglerne fortalt, at investorerne ville købe aktierne? | How expensively have brokers.the told that investors.the would buy stocks.the |
Hvor drastisk har journalisten hørt, at ledelsen ville nedskære udgifterne? | How drastically has journalist.the heard that management.the would cut.down expenses.the |
Hvor langt har kunden indrømmet, at flyttemanden skulle transportere reolen? | How long has customer.the admitted that mover.the had.to transport book.case.the |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nyvad, A.M., Kizach, J. & Christensen, K.R. (Non-)Arguments in Long-Distance Extractions. J Psycholinguist Res 44, 519–531 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9300-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9300-z