Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 779–793 | Cite as

Processing Control Information in a Nominal Control Construction: An Eye-Tracking Study

  • Nayoung KwonEmail author
  • Patrick Sturt


In an eye-tracking experiment, we examined the processing of the nominal control construction. Participants’ eye-movements were monitored while they read sentences that included either giver control nominals (e.g. promise in Luke’s promise to Sophia to photograph himself) or recipient control nominals (e.g. plea in Luke’s plea to Sophia to photograph herself). In order to examine both the initial access of control information, and its later use in on-line processing, we combined a manipulation of nominal control with a gender match/mismatch paradigm. Results showed that there was evidence of processing difficulty for giver control sentences (relative to recipient control sentences) at the point where the control dependency was initially created, suggesting that control information was accessed during the early parsing stages. This effect is attributed to a recency preference in the formation of control dependencies; the parser prefers to assign a recent antecedent to PRO. In addition, readers slowed down after reading a reflexive pronoun that mismatched with the gender of the antecedent indicated by the control nominal (e.g. Luke’s promise to Sophia to photograph herself). The mismatch cost suggests that control information of the nominal control construction was used to constrain dependency formation involving a controller, PRO and a reflexive, confirming the use of control information in on-line interpretation.


Nominal control construction PRO Reflexive Recency effect Eye-tracking 



The authors would like to thank Dr. Hui Fang for assistance in stimuli generation and Meredith Englund, Caitlin Richter and Lewis White for assistance in data collection. This research was supported by the faculty research fund of Konkuk University in 2014.


  1. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betancort, M., Carreiras, M., & Acuña-Fariña, C. (2006). Processing controlled PROs in Spanish. Cognition, 100, 217–282.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bever, T. G., & Sanz, M. (1997). Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension of Spanish unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 69–91.Google Scholar
  6. Boeckx, C., & Hornstein, N. (2003). Reply to “Control is not movement”. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boland, J., Tanenhaus, M., & Garnsey, S. (1990). Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carreiras, M., Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (1996). The use of stereotypical gender information in constructing a mental model: Evidence from English and Spanish. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 639–663.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2001). Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2006). Turn over control to the semantics. Syntax, 9, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109(2), 193–210.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Demestre, J., Meltzer, S., García-Albea, J. E., & Vigil, A. (1999). Identifying the null subject: Evidence from event-related brain potential. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 293–312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Featherston, S., Gross, M., Münte, T. F., & Clahsen, H. (2000). Brain potentials in the processing of complex sentences: An ERP study of control and raising constructions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 141–154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Filik, R., & Sanford, A. J. (2008). When is cataphoric reference recognised? Cognition, 107, 1112–1121.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
  16. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 93–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Frazier, L., Clifton, C., & Randall, J. (1983). Filling gaps: Decision principles and structure in sentence comprehension. Cognition, 13, 187–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garnham, A. (2001). Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium (pp. 95–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hornstein, N., & Polinsky, M. (2010). Control as movement: Across languages and constructions. In N. Hornstein & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Movement theory of control (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackendoff, R., & Culicover, P. W. (2003). The semantic basis of control in English. Language, 79, 517–556. Linguistic Society of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Kwon, N., Monahan, P., & Polinsky, M. (2010). Object control in Korean: A backward control impostor. In N. Hornstein & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Movement theory of control (pp. 299–328). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kwon, N., & Sturt, P. (2014). The use of control information in dependency formation: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 73, 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375–419.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447–454.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Mauner, G., Tanenhaus, M., & Carlson, G. (1995). Implicit arguments in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 357–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McElree, B., & Bever, T. (1989). The psychological reality of linguistically defined gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nicol, J. (1988). Co-references in parsing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
  34. Oakhill, J. V., Garnham, A., & Reynolds, D. J. (2005). Immediate activation of stereotypical gender information in reading. Memory and Cognition, 33, 972–983.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rayner, K. (1978). Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 618–660.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Reynolds, D. J., Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Evidence of immediate activation of gender information from a social role name. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 886–903.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosenbaum, P. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sag, I., & Fodor, J. (1995). Extraction without traces. In: Proceedings of the 13th west coast conference on formal linguistics, pp. 365–384.Google Scholar
  40. Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 542–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sturt, P., Scheepers, C., & Pickering, M. J. (2002). Ambiguity resolution after initial misanalysis: The role of recency. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sturt, P., & Kwon, N. (2015). The processing of raising and nominal control: An eye-tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00331.
  43. Walenski, M. (2002). Relating parsers and grammars: On the structure and real-time comprehension of English infinitival complements. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English Language and LiteratureKonkuk UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyThe University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations