Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Representation and Processing of Participant Role Information

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing

Abstract

Various attempts to characterize the representation of verb argument structure and participant role information are discussed and evaluated. It is concluded that the representation of verb argument structure and participant role information must include both situation-based prototypical role-filler information, as suggested by McRae et al.'s (Language and Cognitive Processes: Special Issue on Lexical Representations in Sentence Processing, 12, 137–176, 1997) verb-specific concept view, and more abstract, semantic role and role property information, as suggested by Koenig et al. (Cognition, 89, 67–103, 2003) lexical encoding hypothesis. Two questions about processing of these two aspects of participant role information are then posed: (1) Are both of aspects of participant role information automatically activated? and (2) How do these aspects of participant role information influence online sentence comprehension? Based on evidence from Su (When is semantic priming automatic? Instrument and location participant role priming as a case study, Unpublished doctoral dissertation 2013), it is concluded that situation-based prototypical role-filler information is not automatically activated by verbs. Evidence regarding the automatic activation of more abstract semantic role property information from sentence processing studies is less direct and not conclusive. Three ways in which these two aspects of participant role information might influence online language comprehension are then discussed. In particular, the role of participant role information in guiding syntactic attachment decisions, integrating constituents such as WH fillers into sentence representations, and anticipating the mention of participant role fillers is examined. It is concluded that both aspects of participant role information may influence all three processes, but when and how they are used during online comprehension may vary as a function of task demands, the comprehender’s goals, and referential contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Conventionally, the term filler is used to indicate a constituent that is not in the canonical position where it would be assigned a participant role, while the term gap is used to indicate that now unoccupied canonical syntactic position. While these terms are most consonant with a government and binding framework, no commitment to this framework is implied. Other frameworks (e.g., Categorical Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG)) make similar predictions about when a WH-constituent will be integrated into a sentence without any commitment to syntactic gaps.

  2. 2.

    One might be tempted to think that because the critical region included the preposition that the argument–adjunct reading time differences were due to with PPs occurring more frequently with instrument argument verbs than instrument adjunct verbs. Two factors rule this possibility out. First, reading times in the critical region did not correlate with the frequency with which verbs co-occurred with instrument PPs. Second, Hongoak Yun, a former graduate student, has replicated the WH-instrument sentence-reading time differences at the direct object when the direct object and preposition were in separate presentation regions.

  3. 3.

    Mauner and Koenig suggested that the slight delay in detecting the absence of volitional agent properties following middle verbs may have been due to differences in expectations about upcoming constituents following the auxiliary verbs in the middle and short passive sentences.

  4. 4.

    I am inclined to agree with Kamide’s (2008) assessment that the results of filler-gap self-paced reading studies are better interpreted as evidence of rapid semantic integration of WH fillers rather than anticipation of the syntactic gaps that they are associated with, given evidence that gap anticipation is predicated on a filler having first been provisionally assigned a particular participant role (Boland et al. 1995).

  5. 5.

    Boland assumed that instruments were adjuncts and in fact few, if any, of her instrument verbs met Koenig et al.’s criteria for encoding an instrument argument.

  6. 6.

    This issue does not arise in Boland (2005) because patients were fronted.

References

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blodgett, A., & Boland, J. E. (2004). Differences in the timing of implausibility detection for recipient and instrument prepositional phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 1–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bodner, G., & Masson, M. (2003). Beyond spreading activation: An influence of relatedness proportion on masked semantic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 645–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boland, J. (2005). Visual arguments. Cognition, 95, 237–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland, J., & Boehm-Jernigan, H. (1998). Lexical constraints and prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 684–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Carlson, G., & Garnsey, S. M. (1989). Lexical projection and the interaction of syntax and semantics in parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 563–576.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boland, J., Tanenhaus, M., Garnsey, S., & Carlson, G. (1995). Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 774–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A. (1994) The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Dell, G. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 441–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G., & Tanenhaus, M. (1988). Thematic roles and language comprehension. In: W. Wilkins (Ed.), Thematic relations (pp. 263–288). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, C., Jr., Speer, S., & Abney, S. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 251–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, K., Koenig, J.-P., & Mauner, G. (2004). The role of specificity in the lexical encoding of participants. Brain and Language, 90, 221–230.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language. A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psycholoyg, 6, 84–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. (1982). Grammatical relations and Montague grammar. In P. Jacobson & G. Pullum (Eds.), The nature of syntactic representations (pp. 79–130). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F., Foucart, A., & Engelhardt, P. (2013). Language processing in the visual world: Effects of preview, visual complexity, and prediction. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 165–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gahl, S., Jurafsky, D., & Roland, D. (2004). Verb subcategorization frequencies: American English corpus data, methodological studies, and cross-corpus comparisons. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 432–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnsey, S., Tanenhaus, M., & Chapman, R. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research: Special Issue on Sentence Processing, 18, 51–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, J., Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Tanenhaus, M. (1996). Integrating discourse and local constraints in resolving lexical thematic ambiguities. Proceedings of the 18th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, M., McRae, K., & Elman, J. (2003). Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 281–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamide, Y. (2008). Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 24, 647–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., & Thompson, C. (2004). Verb deficits in Alzheimer’s disease and agrammatism: Implications for lexical organization. Brain and Language, 88, 1–20.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, J. P., Mauner, G., & Bienvenue, B. (2003). Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition, 89, 67–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, J.-P., Mauner, G., Bienvenue, B., & Conklin, K. (2008). What with? The anatomy of a (proto)-role. Journal of Semantics, 25, 175–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liversedge, S., Pickering, M., Branigan, H., & Van Gompel, R. (1998). Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and in context: The case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 461–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mauner, G., & Koenig, J.-P. (1999). Lexical encoding of event participant information. Brain and Language, 68, 178–184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mauner, G., & Koenig, J.-P. (2000). Linguistic vs. conceptual sources of implicit agents in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 110–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauner, G., Tanenhaus, M., & Carlson, G. (1995). Implicit arguments in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 357–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauner, G., Melinger, A., Koenig, J-P., & Bienvenue, B. (2002). When is schematic participant information encoded? Evidence from eye-monitoring. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 386–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, T. P., & Altarriba, J. (1988). Depth of spreading activation revisited: Semantic mediated priming occurs in lexical decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 545–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McRae, K., Ferretti, T., & Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes: Special Issue on Lexical Representations in Sentence Processing, 12, 137–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. (1997). Complèments et circonstants: une distinction syntaxique ou sèmantique? In J.-C. Souesme (Ed.), (pp. 91–103). Actes du 37ème Congrès de la SAES. Nice: Presses Universitaires de Nice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In: P. H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibition less spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perea, M., & Gotor, A. (1997). Associative and semantic priming effects occur at very short stimulus-onset asynchronies in lexical decision and naming. Cognition, 62, 223–240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perea, M., & Rosa, E. (2002a). Does the proportion of associatively related pairs modulate the associative priming effect at very brief stimulus-onset asynchronies? Acta Psychologica, 110, 103–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perea, M., & Rosa, E. (2002b). The effects of associative and semantic priming in the lexical decision task. Psychological Research, 66, 180–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, and W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmauder, A. R., & Egan, M. (1998). The influence of semantic fit on on-line sentence processing. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1304–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, C. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, C., & Gibson, E. (1999). Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 409–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, J. R., & Martin, R. C. (1992). How semantic is automatic semantic priming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1191–1210.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Speer, S. R., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Plausibility and argument structure in sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 26, 965–978.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Parsing attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227–267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stowe, L. A., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. N. (1991). Filling gaps on-line: Use of lexical and semantic information in sentence processing. Language and Speech, 34, 319–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Su, C. (2013). When is semantic priming automatic? Instrument and location participant role priming as a case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sussman, R. (2006). Verb-instrument information during on-line processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, Rochester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sussman, R., & Sedivy, J. (2003). The time course of processing syntactic dependencies: Evidence from eye movements during spoken narratives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 143–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svartvik, J. (1966). On voice in the English verb, Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 63. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 597–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, M., & Pickering, M. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic effects in parsing: Thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tweedy, J., Lapinski, R., & Schvanenveldt, R. (1977). Semantic context effects on word recognition. Influence of varying the proportion of items in an appropriate context. Memory and Cognition, 5, 84–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Valin, R., & Lapolla, R. (1997). Syntax: Form, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Center for Cognitive Science, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260-4110, USA

    Gail Mauner

Authors
  1. Gail Mauner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gail Mauner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, Québec, Canada

    Roberto G. de Almeida

  2. Department of Philology, University of Patras, Rio Patras, Greece

    Christina Manouilidou

Summary

Summary

In this chapter, I have suggested that participant role information is represented both as situation-based verb-specific role-filler concepts, as suggested by the verb specific concepts view advocated by Ken McRae and his colleagues, and as more abstract semantically required participant roles or role properties, as suggested by the lexical encoding hypothesis developed by me and my collaborators. I have also presented evidence that at least one of these types of participant role information does not appear to be automatically activated when a verb is encountered. Su (2013) found no evidence of facilitatory instrument priming when the possibility of strategic responding was eliminated. Whether semantically required participant role information is automatically activated is as yet unclear. Finally, I discussed how these two aspects of participant role representation might influence language comprehension. While it is clear that participant role information is used to guide syntactic attachment decisions, the extant data are silent on which type of participant role information is used. Evidence from filler-gap studies provides clear evidence that participant role information is used to facilitate the semantic integration of WH fillers into developing sentence representations. Evidence from Boland et al. (1995) suggests that situation-based participant role information is used since it is required for evaluating the plausibility of WH fillers. Evidence from Koenig et al. (2003) demonstrates that semantically required participant role information also facilitates the semantic integration of WH fillers above and beyond the influence of role-filler typicality or probability of being mentioned. Finally, both sources of participant role information are used to anticipate the mention of participant role fillers. However, when these two sources of information are used depends on how quickly they become available and the type and availability of other sources of constraint.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mauner, G. (2015). The Representation and Processing of Participant Role Information. 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_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation