Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 21–31

Does Structural Complexity Necessarily Imply Processing Difficulty?

Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Complexity Pause Processing Subordination Syntax 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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. 45–80Google Scholar
  2. 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):91–107Google Scholar
  3. 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):541–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 35–53Google Scholar
  5. Creissels, D. (2006). Syntaxe générale : une introduction typologique, Paris: Hermès (to appear).Google Scholar
  6. Fodor J.-A., Garrett M. (1967). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception and Psychophysics 2, 289–296Google Scholar
  7. Ford M. (1983). A method of obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 22, 203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ford M., Holmes V.M. (1978). Planning units and syntax in sentence production. Cognition 6, 35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frazier L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In: Dowty D., Karttunen L., Zwicky A. (eds) Natural language parsing. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press pp. 129–189Google Scholar
  10. Gibson E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68, 1–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Goldman-Eisler F. (1972). Pauses, clauses, sentences. Language and Speech 15, 103–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Halliday M.A.K. (1985). Spoken and written language. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Hawkins P.R. (1971). The syntactic location of hesitation pauses. Language and Speech 14, 277–288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Holmes, V. M. (1995). A crosslinguistic comparison of the production of utterances in discourse. Cognition, 169–207.Google Scholar
  16. Jurafsky D., Martin J.H. (2000). Speech and language processing An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. New Jersey, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  17. Just M.A., Carpenter P.A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 99(1):122–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Just M.-A., Carpenter P.-A., Keller T.-A., Eddy W.-F., Thulborn K.-R. (1996). Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science 274, 114–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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):159–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King J., Just M.A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: the role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 2, 580–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koch, P. (1995). Subordination, intégration syntaxique et “oralité”. Études romanes, 13–42.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Maclay H., Osgood C.E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word 15, 19–44Google Scholar
  24. O’Donnell R.C. (1974). Syntactic difference between speech and writing. American Speech 49, 102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Poole M.E., Field T.W. (1976). A comparison of oral and written code elaboration. Language and Speech 19, 305–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Stromswold K., Caplan D., Alpert N., Rauch S. (1996). Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography. Brain and Language 52(3):452–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire Dynamique du langageISH, CNRS & Universié Lyon2LyonFrance

Personalised recommendations