Does Structural Complexity Necessarily Imply Processing Difficulty?
- First Online:
- 106 Downloads
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.
KeywordsComplexity Pause Processing Subordination Syntax
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Creissels, D. (2006). Syntaxe générale : une introduction typologique, Paris: Hermès (to appear).Google Scholar
- Fodor J.-A., Garrett M. (1967). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception and Psychophysics 2, 289–296Google Scholar
- Frazier L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In: Dowty D., Karttunen L., Zwicky A. (eds) Natural language parsing. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press pp. 129–189Google Scholar
- 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
- Halliday M.A.K. (1985). Spoken and written language. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Holmes, V. M. (1995). A crosslinguistic comparison of the production of utterances in discourse. Cognition, 169–207.Google Scholar
- 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
- Koch, P. (1995). Subordination, intégration syntaxique et “oralité”. Études romanes, 13–42.Google Scholar
- 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
- Maclay H., Osgood C.E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word 15, 19–44Google Scholar